[HN Gopher] Right to Repair Gaining Momentum
___________________________________________________________________
Right to Repair Gaining Momentum
Author : foobarbecue
Score : 245 points
Date : 2021-03-16 13:54 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.vice.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.vice.com)
| alert0 wrote:
| A US law mandating right to repair could really improve domestic
| electronics knowledge and capability. So much of that work is out
| sourced to a foreign manufacturer, as rebuilding is cheaper than
| repairing. If consumers or even a handful of specialized shops
| had repair-level knowledge in micro electronics, it would set the
| stage for all sorts of innovation and new products.
| Ccecil wrote:
| I remember back when I was young opening up an older stereo my
| parents had and right inside was the schematic and wiring diagram
| for the whole machine. My father had a shop manual for his 1962
| Ford Thunderbird and not only did it tell you how to fix it but
| it also showed how to make any needed "special tools" for the
| car.
|
| I am not saying every single thing in the world is going to be
| user serviced...but it is a shame that in such a high tech world
| with access to just about any hardware/information needed we are
| increasingly not being "allowed to".
|
| If we continue to allow qualified users to be stifled by DRM for
| the sake of increasing profits through planned obsolecence we are
| going to see greatly increased levels of ecological damage and
| waste.
|
| I remember a time where the worst case scenario of working on
| your own devices was simply voiding a warranty.
|
| It may seem like a modern tractor is a $500k machine which
| "simple folk" shouldn't work on...but don't forget the tractors
| of 50 years ago were viewed by outsiders the same way. Farmers
| have always been innovators of varying levels of skill...but they
| all have one thing in common, they don't seem to be scared of
| fixing stuff. IMHO, a well connected forum of tractor owners
| likely knows close to as much about their tractors as the company
| that made them...even without access to manuals.
|
| Limiting those who tinker and innovate can do no good. It is high
| time we change the slogan to "reduce, reuse, repair, recycle".
| The very last option should be recycling...not the second.
| ekianjo wrote:
| > f we continue to allow qualified users to be stifled by DRM
| for the sake of increasing profits through planned obsolecence
| we are going to see greatly increased levels of ecological
| damage and waste.
|
| Waste is one concern but there is also a hidden cost. Every
| curious person that we prevent from opening up or fixing their
| machine contributes to a net loss of innovation in the long
| run.
| justwalt wrote:
| For me, that's a stronger point. Nicely said.
| elevation wrote:
| My personal activism is to avoid purchasing DRM encumbered
| printers, coffee makers, multimedia streaming. This hasn't
| caused the world to reverse course, and there are still areas
| of compromise, like my cellphone, where I haven't been able
| to afford options that would be DRM free.
|
| If a right to repair law falls through, is there a more
| effective path of consumer activism besides avoiding DRM-
| encumbered products?
| bluetwo wrote:
| I think of farmers as intuitive understanders of physics,
| chemistry, and biology. Manipulating these things is
| essentially what they do all day long.
| bonestamp2 wrote:
| A good, and easy, first step would be for states to adopt laws
| that have the same requirements as Massachusetts. Many companies
| already comply with their right to repair laws, so it would be
| relatively quick and easy to comply with the same laws elsewhere.
|
| The second step would be to support MA (or some other state) in
| adopting even more consumer (and environmentally) friendly right
| to repair laws, especially for: consumer electronics; automotive;
| large and small home appliances; and farm equipment. Then
| everyone else can piggyback on those laws by adopting similar
| ones themselves.
| doggydogs94 wrote:
| Right to repair is great. Of course, 99% of us will end up
| bricking our phone if we tried to replace the screen or battery.
| ma3gl1n wrote:
| I have a soft bricked Xiaomi phone with a locked bootloader. I
| haven't seen any need to unlock it, because I was fine with its
| OS (It is an AndroidOne phone with stock Android). One day the
| phone froze while I was listening to music, and upon a forced
| restart, it stuck on bootloop. An issue that should have been
| fairly easy to fix with a reset, or at worst with a reflash of
| the original ROM. But turned out that I could not do any of
| those with a locked bootloader. Later I've found out that
| Android phones have an "Emergency Download Mode" (EDL) that you
| can access by short-circuiting 2 test points on motherboard.
| Since I couldn't find a better option, I've opened my phone and
| tried to flash "the original", Xiaomi released ROM, but blocked
| yet again from doing so, because Xiaomi also locked the EDL
| mode. Only authorized Xiaomi personnel can flash "their" phones
| through EDL mode. I didn't know any of that when I bought my
| phone, there was zero mention for bootloaders on user manual,
| EDL lock was added after a software update (which I've learned
| years later, as it wasn't mentioned on release notes). So, my
| phone is waiting for benevolent hackers to find "exploits" in
| its bootloader to be usable again.
| Lio wrote:
| We would like the right to take our phones to independent
| specialists to have them repair them with equivalent parts to
| the original where possible.
|
| It's the case that in the EU and UK (for now) that we can take
| our cars to qualified independent service centres without
| invalidating our warrantees.
|
| We want the same for our phones and other devices.
| bogwog wrote:
| That's FUD
| megiddo wrote:
| How does this entire article have no references to the DMCA and
| copyright?
|
| Like, the ENTIRETY of the "right-to-repair" issue could be
| resolved by repealing the worst parts (or all of) the DMCA and
| updating copyright law with respect to machine code or object
| code to make it fair for buyers.
|
| If I buy a book, cut it up and make a collage, the original
| author can't claim copyright.
|
| Do the same with some object code, you break the law.
| the_af wrote:
| I was re-reading (ok, actually trying to finish yet again) _Zen
| and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance_ and I think some of what
| Pirsig says at the beginning of the book applies here.
|
| Namely, the division between people who just want things to work
| and hope "somebody" else will step in when a fix is needed, and
| those who understand the abstraction sometimes leaks, and you
| need to be able to dig in and at least know how to solve some
| problems "under the hood". He makes a whole philosophy of
| "romantics" vs "classics" out of it, but I think that's
| irrelevant here: what matters is that no-one should be _forced_
| to be powerless about the hardware they own.
|
| This is obviously related to the right to repair. Pirsig wasn't
| thinking of Apple, but he does mention John Deere!
| gcanyon wrote:
| First: I can't imagine not finishing Zen -- it is among my top
| ten books.
|
| Second: I agree, no one should be forced to be "powerless"
| about the hardware they own. But right to repair is exactly
| that: I don't want a phone with a detachable battery and
| upgradable memory -- that means the phone isn't waterproof
| and/or is much thicker and heavier. I don't want to force
| people to have the phone I prefer, but I also don't want the
| kind of phone right to repair would force me to have.
| fartcannon wrote:
| I'll be you they find a way to keep the phones looking the
| way you want while still making them repairable. I'll bet you
| all that cant-be-done stuff is excuses and bullshit.
| the_af wrote:
| > _First: I can 't imagine not finishing Zen -- it is among
| my top ten books._
|
| Well, I'm making a second attempt. I really liked it the
| first time, but it requires a certain state of enjoy -- skim
| reading it just won't do.
|
| I think Pirsig would understand why it took me years. He
| makes a point about slowness and not rushing things, the
| journey vs the destination.
|
| > _I also don 't want the kind of phone right to repair would
| force me to have._
|
| So you're in John Sutherland's camp, with his trusty BMW R60
| that requires no involvement on his part -- till it does, of
| course, and it frustrates him.
| bzzzt wrote:
| Just wondering: if there was a 'right to repair' on computers
| in the 60's, would Intel have made an integrated
| microprocessor? I mean: you can't just fix a dead register by
| replacing it anymore...
|
| Lots of electronics have become more reliable by being fully
| integrated units. I prefer a durable phone to a repairable
| phone that needs constant replacements.
| jorvi wrote:
| No, but Intel should offer replacement parts for a reasonable
| time for what can be replaced. I don't know if RAM slots or a
| BIOS ROM chip are actually resolderable, but if they are then
| those parts should be offered for example.
| setr wrote:
| Right to repair doesn't mean that everything must be
| repairable; it means that manufacturers can't block you from
| installing a replacement part (eg by requiring a key from
| CORP)
|
| That is, if you could have repaired it, YOU could have
| repaired it
| simion314 wrote:
| >Lots of electronics have become more reliable by being fully
| integrated units. I prefer a durable phone to a repairable
| phone that needs constant replacements.
|
| Your argument might be fair but is ignoring the 99% of the
| complaints:
|
| - DRM
|
| - no schematics
|
| - forbidding selling of spare parts
|
| - not sharing repair tools
|
| Maybe we should put an Apple exception so we don't trigger
| the fanboys then we get the right the repair for all the
| other electronics , fix 90% of the problem and we takle the
| Apple fanboys with a different law.
|
| Imagine this scenario, you have a tool like a tractor (but
| could be a washing machine,printer). One day it stops working
| and a red light turns on. In this case the problem was
| something a child could fix, something got stuck in the tool
| and it could not open/move, you remove the thing and all is
| fine now. But the tool will not work until a genius will you
| send it to a genius to use a secret tool to read the error
| code, then he would notice that all is fine, press the "Reset
| status" button on his tool and give you a big receipt.
|
| I imagine the Apple car, you will have a tire issue but you
| only an Apple genius will be able to replace the tire and the
| fanboys will defend the DRM locked tires with the same bad
| excuse "the DRM reduces tire stealing, it is not expensive
| for me personally to bring the car to Apple store, there are
| so many stores here in my city, don't buy the Apple car if
| you are poor , and if someone gifts you an old one throw it
| away, there are no parts anyway and fixing an old one would
| cost more then a new one )
| ls65536 wrote:
| No need to imagine...This sort of scenario already happened
| to someone I know with their Apple device:
|
| They had just wiped their iPhone in an attempt to clean it
| up and restore the software to factory condition, and
| afterwards it required an OS software update for some
| reason (okay, sure), so this was done. After this update,
| some kind of "activation" was required (why?) before the
| device was usable at all for anything meaningful. This
| activation step failed, showing no particular reason for
| failure (only along the lines of "your iPhone couldn't be
| activated, call support"). Over the phone support wasn't
| helpful in giving any further details, so ultimately the
| device was brought to Apple where they used some diagnostic
| tools and determined that some hardware component (possibly
| cellular antenna?) was malfunctioning, and most likely this
| was preventing the activation from continuing (again,
| why?). The Apple tech said they could do nothing to repair
| the device (no hardware fix, no software fix), and as a
| "fix" offered only some sort of insultingly low-value buy-
| back option instead.
|
| There are so many problems with this scenario:
|
| 1. Why was "activation" required to use the device at all
| at this point? The owner just wanted to use it to take some
| photos, listen to music, watch videos, and do some simple
| web browsing...No Apple services required, so why the
| forced requirement to activate the device?
|
| 2. Why was no useful information presented to the user
| about why the activation step failed, so they could at
| least attempt to troubleshoot for themselves (or with the
| help of someone of their choosing)?
|
| 3. Why does an otherwise unnecessary hardware sub-component
| (from the point of view of the device "owner" in the
| context of their usage) misbehaving prevent the ability to
| activate or otherwise use the device for some valid
| purpose?
|
| I should mention that the device was out of warranty by
| this point, so it was not expected that any hardware repair
| would be at anyone's expense but the owner's, but this
| entire situation to me just looked like a pointless
| software-induced device disabling, for no good reason.
|
| After witnessing such a situation, I can't help but wonder
| how much of this hostility and disrespect towards their
| customers is just so Apple can drive more new device sales,
| or what else is going on, but it certainly gave me a lot to
| think about where this particular company (and the industry
| in general) seems to be headed.
| asdff wrote:
| At the same time, a durable phone is no different to one
| where you could replace the parts that are simply soldered
| together in the "durable" phone.
| ghaff wrote:
| "Right to repair" doesn't mean that everything has to be
| actually repairable down to replacing things at the lowest
| level of component. It means making the same tools and
| information available that an authorized repair center has
| access to. But if the standard of repair is swapping out an
| entire device or PCB there's no requirement to go above and
| beyond that.
|
| A lot of people seem to confuse "right of repair" with
| modularity/ease of repair.
| ehnto wrote:
| I think the new EU right to repair laws require appliances
| to be repairable for up to ten years, this article at least
| seems to suggest that the intention is for a level of ease
| of repair especially in regards to fasteners and fittings:
|
| > Under the new EU rules, manufacturers will have to ensure
| parts are available for up to a decade, though some will
| only be provided to professional repair companies to ensure
| they are installed correctly.
|
| > New devices will also have to come with repair manuals
| and be made in such a way that they can be dismantled using
| conventional tools when they really can't be fixed anymore,
| to improve recycling.
|
| https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-
| tech/eu...
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| >"electronics have become more reliable"
|
| Is that actually true? I have a 20 year old TV and a
| projector that still work, and I would be very surprised if
| my current one will last that long.
| the_af wrote:
| Pirsig couldn't fix or understand _every_ component of his
| motorcycle, but he advocated having some degree of control
| over the components he did understand and knew how to fix or
| jury-rig. His anecdote about using tin from beer cans to
| jury-rig a simple fix -- and the wounded reaction to it by
| his friend John -- is enlightening.
|
| It's not all or nothing.
| ehnto wrote:
| Pragmatism and the application of it is an art all of it's
| own. A pragmatist may change their own clutch, but get a
| professional to do their wiring. It's about addressing the
| situation and making a reasonable choice.
| the_af wrote:
| Oh, fully agreed! And I think Pirsig would have agreed,
| too.
|
| Regardless, you need _some level of understanding_ to
| make the call. A particularly funny anecdote from the
| book, if you read it, is when he decides some fix is too
| delicate for him and takes his motorcycle to a repair
| shop. Right from the start he gets a bad vibe -- the
| mechanics are all kids listening to loud music and
| seemingly not paying attention to what they are doing.
| This is later confirmed: they return his bike without
| fixing the problem, then try to fix it more seriously but
| forget to screw some vital parts, leading to additional
| damage, and in the end they completely fail to fix the
| problem. What 's important is that right from the start
| Pirsig got the feeling something was off about this
| repair shop, and he could sense this because he know
| enough about the components of his bike (for example, he
| guessed they had forgotten to screw something down simply
| because it's easy to miss and he knew this screw was
| there).
|
| If, like his friend John, you decide "I have something
| else to spend my time on, better leave this to the
| professionals", it might seem superficially a pragmatic
| choice but it could also make you fail to notice the
| repairmen who are bad at their jobs, until it's too late
| and your piece of machinery fails catastrophically.
| illwrks wrote:
| That reminds me... I was converting some VHS tapes for a family
| member and one was of an event on a farm where a trailer had
| tipped over in a slope damaging something on the axel.
|
| Cut to a short time later and the clip continues with the
| farmers welding and repairing using logs to prop up parts of
| it.
|
| They would have been seriously impacted if they needed too wait
| for days/weeks for a appointment to have it repaired.
|
| There is no excuse for having something not be repairable,
| especially if you have the knowledge and need to be able to
| repair your things.
| hnick wrote:
| Our 13 year old Miele dishwasher broke last week. I had a
| service call booked but cancelled because it wouldn't be worth
| the parts and labour costs of multiple hundreds (good chance
| something else will break next year).
|
| I had a lot of fun tearing it apart and seeing how it's made
| and as a longshot to fixing it myself. I think I could have
| fixed it myself if I had access to parts and some blocks to put
| it on to look underneath when it's running, but alas I don't
| have any of that so it's probably going to be tossed. But the
| nice thing is, it was always an option to spend the time to fix
| it. I feel like I learned something and if anything else breaks
| I'm more confident.
|
| At least I learned something, enjoyed myself despite a cut
| finger or two, and saw all the general wear and tear in various
| parts which made me feel better about replacing the whole
| thing.
| vbezhenar wrote:
| There's another distinction. Some people will replace broken
| parts with new parts. And some people will repair that part,
| sometimes inventing and building new tools on the fly. Former
| is relatively easy and one should just follow manuals to
| succeed. Latter is some kind of art, which requires flexible
| mind and tons of experience.
| freedom42 wrote:
| The thing is even if people don't wanna repair themselves they
| might wanna change a battery. Or get something minor done
| cheaply by a 3rd party. But Apple goes so far out of the way to
| kill third party repair. They even put special screws in their
| machines to screw you.
|
| Edit: The EU pushed right to repair, right? Now see what Apple
| did to screw France [1]. Their latest and greatest devices
| somehow have a repairability score of around 6.5/10. How is it
| possible?
|
| [1] https://appleinsider.com/articles/21/02/26/apple-now-
| display...
| yohannparis wrote:
| Their scores on number 5 give them 2 points already
| (notification of update and their content, free shipping for
| repairs, able to re-install software). On most of the rest
| (like number 4 access and price of parts) they get a shitty
| score of between 1.6 and 0.9
| bullosB wrote:
| The score is based on 5 categories:
|
| 1.documentation available
|
| 2.ease of repair
|
| 3.availability of spare parts
|
| 4.price or spare parts
|
| 5.category specific to the product (not the same for a
| washing machine or a computer).
|
| Each of them give you a score out of 20, and the total is
| divided by 10. So you can have 0 on the 2., making the phone
| hard to repair, but still having a 8/10 score.
|
| In the end its similar to Booking reviews, where 6/10 is very
| low and you want to avoid this hotel.
|
| Details (in French) https://www.ecologie.gouv.fr/indice-
| reparabilite
| freedom42 wrote:
| Thanks for explaining. That's unbelievable. That's a really
| stupid law right? I mean elementary-school-kid-bypassable
| kinda stupid.
| bluetwo wrote:
| I love the right to repair and also Apple products. I have
| seen over the years how they have struggled back and forth
| with the line between what they want to allow customers to do
| and what they want to do. Sometimes I'm disappointed by their
| decisions. Many times I am impressed with how they handle
| themselves.
|
| They have fixed multiple out of warranty problems for free or
| for parts-only, where other companies would have charged much
| more to do so. I think they don't flaunt this customer
| service because they don't want people to take it for
| granted, and they don't want to attract the type of customer
| that would abuse the policy.
| dbcurtis wrote:
| Let's hope so. As an old farm boy and a do-it-yourselfer that
| grew up in the farm shop fixing equipment, few things get my
| blood boiling as much as the current machinery software lock-
| downs.
| 1-6 wrote:
| It's a brave new world. Fortunately, we have Russian hackers by
| our side generously sharing their code to bypass DRM in farm
| equipment.
| 1-6 wrote:
| I worked on an old Honda Odyssey that I bought used from a friend
| for $100. It took at least $2000 in parts but I could find all
| the parts on RockAuto.com (The site is ugly but functional). Just
| like cars, in the long-run, I think bringing products to market
| which are repairable will help create trust between manufacturer
| and end-user. In fact, the resale value of an older item depends
| on the affordability of the repair.
| 1-6 wrote:
| Unfortunately, Tesla is starting to build their battery packs
| in-frame so it'll become harder to repair.
| https://electrek.co/2021/01/19/tesla-structural-battery-pack...
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| I'm kinda hoping that there will be legislation or
| standardization for battery packs. As it stands, when that
| battery pack is end-of-life, the whole car will be scrapped
| because it's not financially viable to have a new one
| installed.
|
| But if it's standardized, if it's EOL the battery pack can be
| replaced with either a new, better battery (e.g. solid state)
| or a refurbished / secondhand battery. And the EOL battery
| pack handed in for refurbishment, which hopefully
| significantly reduces cost.
|
| Then again, I'm reading that the average car is scrapped
| after about 14 years. Might be high-end Model S-es may live
| longer, but if we get more cheap EVs, refurbishing the
| battery won't be viable no matter how cheap they make it.
| bzzzt wrote:
| If the battery costs 75% of the car does it make sense to
| try to refurbish it? There are old model S cars on the road
| with half a million miles on and still usable range. After
| that kind of mileage I expect the rest of the car to be
| pretty worn too...
| fortran77 wrote:
| According to many sources, for example this CNET article,
| cars are one of the best-recycled products around, with
| "86%" (according to this article) of the material in a car
| recycled to use again:
|
| https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/recyclable-cars-what-
| part...
| xmodem wrote:
| That sort of metric is counting by weight, which I'm not
| sure can be directly compared to other products. Google
| says the average compact car weights 1324 kg, the un-
| recyclable porition of that is equivalant to one hell of
| a lot of iPhones.
| jackcviers3 wrote:
| This is so backwards. If they want electric cars to dominate,
| they need interchangeable, standardized batteries that can be
| swapped out by machines at gas stations just like stopping
| for gas. You'll never have batteries that charge quickly
| enough for a cross-country trip and have range.
| ed25519FUUU wrote:
| A real shame since electric cars are extremely simple.
| There's not a panoply of different parts that slowly wear out
| and need to be troubleshooted separately and replaced at
| different times. It's basically the battery pack and brakes.
| rsj_hn wrote:
| There are suspension systems, heating/AC, doors, sunroofs,
| motors controlling windows and doors, sealants around the
| same, lights, infotainment systems, seats and seat controls
| and motors controlling these, power steering, heat pumps,
| multiple cameras (each of which can fail), huge numbers of
| sensors (including radar), as well as wiring between the
| cameras and sensors and all other other components,
| differentials, brakes, brake regeneration, transmission
| (yes, Tesla has a transmission, just a simple one), engine,
| and battery.
|
| All of these can suffer failure and require replacing. Even
| if they are unlikely to wear out in normal circumstances,
| people get into fender benders, and there are always
| exceptional circumstances. Given the huge number of parts
| and miles of wiring, the average owner can expect
| exceptional failures on a few parts. All modern cars are
| extremely complex, even if the drivetrain is simplified.
| ed25519FUUU wrote:
| No oil changes, water pump, fuel pump, valves, spark
| plugs, radiator, alternator, starter, ignition system,
| oxygen sensors, etc. The amount of parts that go into a
| functioning internal combustion engine is quite
| staggering.
|
| The unfortunate part of this is that ICE cars are
| effectively trashed once the engine seizes. Replacing the
| engine is almost always more expensive than replacing the
| car, and many things can still wear out once the engine
| is replaced.
|
| If you look at the 10k, 50k, 100k maintenance on EVs is
| almost a joke[1].
|
| 1. https://www.myev.com/research/ev-101/what-does-it-
| take-to-ma...
| rsj_hn wrote:
| > If you look at the 10k, 50k, 100k maintenance on EVs is
| almost a joke
|
| So then you should have no problem buying an out of
| warranty Tesla - it should be inexpensive to maintain,
| right?
|
| This is the difference between theory and practice. Even
| though ICE engines are more complex (true) they are
| nevertheless well understood, the manufacturing process
| has been refined, and there is a robust aftermarket and
| network of independent dealers so that costs are
| controlled. One thousand dollar door handle replacement
| on your Tesla
| (https://forums.tesla.com/discussion/90061/door-handle-
| not-fu...) is going to make up for a lot of oil changes.
|
| The issue with PEV is that these are new components and
| the manufacturers have locked down the supply chain so
| you have to go to the manufacturer. That's how you get
| these insane repair costs and why right to repair and a
| robust third party market is so important.
|
| Each time someone suggests how much cheaper to maintain
| the EVs are, ask them why no EV manufacturer is offering
| a 20 year 200,000 mile warranty. If the costs are really
| 90% lower, then this should be easy to do. And Tesla
| should easily be able to set aside only 10% of what other
| automakers set aside for warranty reserves. Yet we see
| that
|
| "Business news publication Barron's calculated that
| Tesla's third quarter additions to the warranty reserve
| were 2.7% of the company's car sales - slightly higher
| than the auto industry average of 2.5%. That's despite
| the fact that electric engines have fewer parts that are
| subject to wear than internal combustion engines, making
| them potentially cheaper to maintain."
| https://fortune.com/2020/03/04/tesla-warranties-
| accounting-p...
|
| But again, there is a difference between theory and
| practice, between a well understood, mature system and a
| new system. If you don't believe me, then go ahead and
| buy that out of warranty car with lots of new tech and
| see how it works out for you. I'll wait.
| dbg31415 wrote:
| > When your stuff breaks, you should be able to fix it yourself.
|
| This concept is inherently flawed. These complex devices were
| built by teams of highly skilled and specialized engineers. The
| concept that you should be able to repair it with a screwdriver
| and a 6-pack is outdated.
|
| I grew up on a cattle ranch, and we had lots of tractors and
| equipment -- some of it over 100 years old. I rebuilt an
| International Farmall Model B Tractor with my Dad when I was 14.
| And it was a lot of fun to go around to old junk yards and find
| the parts we needed. This tractor was built in the 1940s and I
| think that's what people think of when they think tractors.
|
| I learned how clean an maintain simple engines, how to organize
| parts so I could confidently take something apart and put it back
| together again, how to bend and weld metal. It was a great
| project. Totally 100% think every kid should do something like
| this. When the tractor was done, and repainted, I got to drive it
| in a parade.
|
| When we were putting that tractor back together... a lot of times
| bolts needed to be cut, drilled out, holes re-tooled, or just
| welded back into place. And while it looked fine, there's no way
| someone should think we were professionals. I'd be scared if
| someone took that tractor and tried to do real work with it.
|
| There was one place in particular, where I used a bunch of
| bailing wire to hold a non-visible part where it needed to be
| held. And it worked OK for driving in a parade. But if someone
| had attached something to the PTO shaft... and it needed
| significant torque, I'm guessing the bailing wire MacGyver patch
| job would have caused catastrophic failure.
|
| And that's fine, if it happens as soon as you do it, but like,
| what if it happened while you were working in the field, or what
| if someone else (20+ years later) starts the tractor up and uses
| it -- not knowing that my splice is in place? It makes the
| machine fundamentally unreliable, unsafe.
|
| Now... that was an 80 years old tractor. Fast forward to today,
| when the machines have conservatively 1,000 times more power.
| Ranchers cut corners all the time... can't wait a week for parts?
| Just splice something. But how does the software know to account
| for that? It's expecting a load of 1,000 pounds and it adjusts
| hydraulics accordingly... but what if due to the "fix" it can now
| only support a load of 300 pounds?
|
| And let's say someone is hurt? Is that on John Deere? Or the
| Rancher who bought the tractor 2nd hand at an auction? Is that on
| the insurance company, that has to insure equipment that costs
| 10s if not 100s of thousands of dollars that get plugged into the
| tractor and rely on it operating to spec? It's just such a
| massive can of worms.
|
| So let's then add the software element. And assume that some
| fixes are going to not just be hardware, but software-related as
| well. Would that mean that John Deere, or Apple, or anyone, would
| have to make their code open-source -- for all of their
| competitors to review as well? Or provide peer review if you want
| to make a change? For how long? Like let's assume tractors today
| last as long as the tractor I rebuilt with my Dad in the 90s...
| 50 years? Wonder how you even factor in 1/2 a century of support
| in to the purchase cost. Oof.
|
| Anyway, it's just a mess. People over simplify it, "I should be
| able to fix my bike, so I should be able to fix this $500,000
| tractor..." and at some point it just doesn't scale.
|
| And, like others have said... I really don't want to have to run
| my phone through some sort of unit testing / compliance check
| every time I go to get on an airplane. Batteries, and phone
| software... they're a whole other complex issue. Even what we
| have now, with 3rd Party batteries... it's pretty risky.
| jkingsbery wrote:
| I'm pretty in favor of right-to-repair, but I came here to see
| if any one had good reasons for not having right-to-repair (or
| limiting it). Thanks for providing this alternative view point!
|
| It probably doesn't apply to phones, but the liability is an
| interesting question, especially for equipment with a lifetime
| of decades.
| bordercases wrote:
| I originally disagreed with you but on the other hand there are
| merits to your position. I don't believe it refutes the need
| for pushing the right to repair to its limits. But it does show
| that there are limits, coming from the increasing
| sophistication of technology and thus the amount of specialized
| knowledge required to maintain it.
|
| However, arguments can be made in the opposite direction that
| restrict total system throughput in favor of greater robustness
| of its parts. To push technology to operate at higher
| throughputs we often need to make it more complex.
|
| My specific arguments reduce to "let's just consume less as a
| civilization so we can last longer overall" which is a moot
| point though
| tombert wrote:
| Correct me if I'm wrong, but does your argument reduce down to
| "some people could possibly do things wrong, therefore we
| should give monopoly-power to Apple to fix our products, and
| trust that they won't overcharge us"?
| bordercases wrote:
| Yeah, I admit the open-source/IP part of the argument seems
| incidental to other parts of this point
| LocalH wrote:
| >The concept that you should be able to repair it with a
| screwdriver and a 6-pack is outdated.
|
| Nobody is saying that. Right to repair is basically the right
| for independent repair shops to even be able to acquire the
| equipment and parts necessary to do repairs. If an individual
| has the capital, and wishes to perform their own repairs, then
| yes that is an _option_.
|
| Apple prevents you from taking two brand new authentic iPhone
| 12s and swapping the cameras. In this case, both cameras are
| authentic Apple hardware. For what reason should that not be
| permitted?
| pbasista wrote:
| > The concept that you should be able to repair it with a
| screwdriver and a 6-pack is outdated.
|
| I agree. But no one asks for that.
|
| It is my understanding that the "right to repair" initiative,
| as presented by Louis Rossmann, only asks that the people who
| are willing to do the repair themselves are able to get the
| replacement parts, the tools (e.g. custom screwdrivers, flash
| programmers ...) and the expertise (e.g. schematics, binary or
| API specifications, ...) necessary to perform it. It does not
| ask that the repair should require no skills.
|
| > and at some point it just doesn't scale
|
| To the best of my knowledge, the mentioned "right to repair"
| initiative does not ask that it should be possible to e.g.
| repair a tractor using only bike shop tools. It merely asks
| that an independent tractor repair shop should be able to do
| it. And for that it would need parts, tools and expertise to be
| available.
|
| > it's pretty risky
|
| Yes. If repairs are performed without proper parts, without
| proper tools and without proper expertise, they are risky. That
| is also one of the reasons why the right to repair asks for
| those to be available.
|
| ===
|
| There is an argument that limiting the availability of parts,
| tools and expertise would limit the number of people attempting
| to perform the repairs. That would, in theory, in turn limit
| the number of people that would perform those repairs without
| the necessary skills, which might potentially be dangerous to
| the customers.
|
| However, I am not sure if such limiting measures, when applied,
| have the desired outcome. I think that the demand for repairs
| is primarily driven by the rate at which the particular kind of
| devices need it. It is not going to magically go down just
| because parts, tools and expertise are unavailable.
|
| Consider the availability of schematics for MacBooks, for
| example. They are not available _officially_. But it is
| possible to get them via shady channels. The operation of such
| channels is risky because it is often illegal. But it is
| nevertheless being done because there is a large demand for it.
|
| That is why I think that limiting the availability of parts,
| tools and expertise would not have the desired effect of less
| people attempting the repairs. It seems more likely to me that
| the number of people who would be attempting the repairs would
| remain roughly the same. But since the parts, tools and
| expertise would be coming via shady channels, they may not be
| of the sufficient quality. As a result, even some of the people
| who have the sufficient skills would not be able to provide the
| repairs of the high-enough quality to be indistinguishable from
| the repairs provided by the manufacturer.
|
| Therefore, I think that such availability-limiting measures
| make sub-optimal repairs more frequent, which is exactly the
| opposite of the goal they are trying to achieve.
| JoshTko wrote:
| I don't want a bulky, heavy, non waterproof, and less reliable
| smartphone (due to more moveable parts) just to have a easily
| replaceable battery.
| Qwertious wrote:
| Waterproof phones can have replaceable parts. IIRC the "rugged"
| type phones on the market tend to use gaskets.
| Judgmentality wrote:
| The rugged phones are also significantly larger and more
| expensive.
| gcanyon wrote:
| Exactly this. People who want phones like this should be able
| to have them, but not at the cost of me being forced to have
| one too.
| ghaff wrote:
| Well, they only "should be able to have them" to the degree
| that there's a sufficient market for someone to make and sell
| them. There are no guarantees that the product you want to
| buy is one for which there's a sufficient market to sell.
| bonestamp2 wrote:
| It's not about changing the phone, it's about making the OEM
| tools, parts and service information available to independent
| shops so they can repair a waterproof phone the same way
| someone at the manufacturer does the same repair.
|
| I suppose if an individual wants to buy an expensive tool to do
| a single repair that would be available to the individual too,
| but that's not typically what I would expect when we're talking
| about cases that involve an expensive tool.
|
| For example, Chevy dealers have to buy a $15,000 lift/harness
| to lower and service or replace the battery in a chevy volt. In
| Massachusetts, that harness would be available to independent
| mechanics and consumers too, but I doubt any consumers actually
| buy it. However, at least the independent shops can and that
| means consumers can take it somewhere other than a Chevy dealer
| if they want.
| TheGRS wrote:
| There's a good argument to be made around helping local
| economies with this as well. Part of auto's impact during the
| 20th century was creating all these small businesses of car
| dealers, auto repair shops, oil change stations, gas station
| attendants, etc. The products of the 21st century largely
| don't enable any of that, the money just all goes to Apple
| and Samsung. And like, I don't immediately think to call up a
| local electronics repair specialist, I go to the Apple Store.
| And more likely than not I usually replace my phone before
| considering heavy repairs since its usually a couple years
| old at that point anyway.
| e2le wrote:
| That depends, does what you want cause greater harm to society
| than the alternative? Does manufacturing less repairable
| devices cause more to be disposed of more quickly? Ideally with
| the environmental concerns we face, making what we already have
| last as long as reasonably possible is the least we can do.
| JoshTko wrote:
| This assumes that repairable devices on net cause less waste
| which may not be the case for smartphones. Lighter,
| waterproof, with no moving parts for battery swapping can
| lead to much longer lasting devices.
| asdff wrote:
| They don't throw away the entire iPhone when they replace your
| battery. Right to repair would mean you as a consumer have
| access to the tools and hardware needed to make the repair.
| gogopuppygogo wrote:
| Right to repair is not about making devices more repairable but
| about enabling us to buy parts and service from third parties
| outside the manufacturers.
|
| Apple has begun serializing parts. You cannot take a camera
| from one iPhone 12 and put it into another iPhone 12 because
| Apple serialized the camera to the phone it shipped with. They
| are beyond reasonable with this kind of hostile approach to
| repair.
| JoshTko wrote:
| I think Apple is justifiably terrified of a 3rd party
| battery, installed by someone with 5 minutes of training,
| causing a fire and making headlines.
| rover0 wrote:
| How is a 3rd party battery related to replacing an apple
| iphone camera with an apple iphone camera?
| bzzzt wrote:
| Because there are also off-brand "Apple iPhone camera's"
| (for instance QC failures from the factory, third shifts
| or clones)
| rover0 wrote:
| There are no 3rd party iphone camera's for recent
| iphones.
|
| Apple blocks replacing an iphone camera with an iphone
| camera using their software.
|
| iPhone 12 is unrepairable:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnG3h3Jewq4
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| Why should my rights to do as I please with my property
| suffer because of what Apple wants.
|
| Last time I checked, i didnt lease the iPhone, I bought it.
| This is a straight up violation of property rights
|
| we pay full price for these products, but we have no
| control of any sort!
|
| If we let this continue, we will live in a world where the
| manufacturer of a smart bottle decides when you stop
| drinking, the manufacturer of a TV decides that you
| shouldn't be watching porn, etc.
| mqus wrote:
| Apple is terrified of bad headlines? That's news to me.
| minikites wrote:
| Do replacement cameras and screens cause fires too?
| bzzzt wrote:
| Worse, they cause unsatisfied customers who don't want
| their next phone to be an Apple.
| C19is20 wrote:
| I bought some OEM stuff for my car. I bet Ford are fuming
| that I've devalued their product. If someone replaced a
| camera and weren't happy with it, at least they could try
| another.
| minikites wrote:
| That's a problem for Apple. Why is it a problem for
| consumers?
| spamizbad wrote:
| Okay, then why is the camera serialized and not the battery
| (which, incidentally, you CAN replace on the iPhone 12)?
| eigen wrote:
| > Okay, then why is the camera serialized and not the
| battery (which, incidentally, you CAN replace on the
| iPhone 12)?
|
| on my macbook I can see the battery serial number in
| System Information under the Power section and the camera
| unique ID under the Camera section. not sure why it would
| be any different on the iphone.
| bzzzt wrote:
| Just guessing:
|
| - it's a component of the Face ID authentication scheme
|
| - they don't want people using iPhones with sub-par
| camera's posting on social media
|
| - they don't want iPhones with sub-par camera's on the
| second hand market
| smoldesu wrote:
| Then don't let it take sub-par cameras. I don't give a
| rats ass about serialized components as long as I can
| still buy and install the factory parts.
| AshWolfy wrote:
| The cameras have nothing to do with face ID, and its not
| just that 3rd parts cameras arent compatable, but even
| oem cameras arent without access to apple's systems
| called ast2 and gsx
| kevbin wrote:
| > Connecticut, Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland,
| Massachusetts, Missouri, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey,
| New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Washington state are all
| considering broad [right-to-repair] laws that would apply to most
| of the stuff we use everyday.
|
| Meanwhile, in Sacramento, it is _illegal_ to repair your own car
| at your own home.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26421495
| fasteddie31003 wrote:
| Just looked into that law. It does exist https://code-
| enforcement.saccounty.net/Programs/pages/autore... I remember
| when I lived in SF and I would repair my own car and everyone
| kinda looked at me weird. Maybe it was because people probably
| thought I was stealing a catalytic converter or something.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| This is a bit misleading. The Sacramento regulation appears to
| be about zoning to dissuade commercial repair operations on
| residential grounds.
|
| This is bad, but is not really "anti repair" any more than not
| being allowed to operate a bar/food service business out of
| your own home.
| [deleted]
| ghaff wrote:
| Massachusetts had to go for round 2 of their legislation
| because Tesla in particular was using a loophole to get around
| it: https://www.vice.com/en/article/93wy8v/newly-passed-right-
| to...
| simias wrote:
| I definitely think it's a good idea. The other week my
| girlfriend's Western Digital external drive stopped working, I
| wanted to open it to figure out if it was the drive itself or the
| sata-to-USB logic. Took me 20 minutes to open the case, and I
| damaged it significantly in the process. Turns out that it was
| only the USB adapter that was out of order, I bought a cheap-o
| USB 3 case and now it works again.
|
| Yesterday I wanted to fix the light on a USB wallsocket I have, I
| gave up because after 10 minutes I couldn't figure out how to
| even open the thing up. I tried squeezing it, tapping it in
| various parts, prying at various seams, nothing would give.
|
| That being said, I really wonder how you could regulate this
| easily. Lack of screws could be argued to be beneficial for
| aesthetics for instance. Modern smartphones are a pain to repair
| in no small part because size is very important so everything is
| crammed together, and highly integrated components are usually
| smaller and yield better economies of scale.
|
| I think it's a good idea, but I'm really not sure how it could be
| implemented well.
| MayeulC wrote:
| > Yesterday I wanted to fix the light on a USB wallsocket I
| have, I gave up because after 10 minutes I couldn't figure out
| how to even open the thing up. I tried squeezing it, tapping it
| in various parts, prying at various seams, nothing would give.
|
| Did you try looking up the manual? Even if the steps for
| removing it aren't documented, you can often walk the
| installation steps in reverse order.
|
| Visible serial + some documentation would help a great deal.
| bowl wrote:
| In my opinion, I think the best way to implement this is
| something like the repairability labels, like how it's done in
| the EU. Not sure how to pick who gets to decide what goes on
| the labels, however.
| michaelt wrote:
| _> USB wallsocket [...] I couldn 't figure out how to even open
| the thing up._
|
| In my country, wall sockets are often riveted closed, because
| (a) they gotta be cheap, and (b) they've got a bunch of screw
| terminals, and they're worried with any more screws some
| dumbass will undo the wrong ones.
| intricatedetail wrote:
| Classic WD. So you dodged a bullet. I had WD drive that USB
| board failed and that board contained encryption key. So I lost
| data even if I could install the board from other drive. And
| they had a nerve to advertise this as a feature pro consumer!
| (It encrypted the data even if you didn't turn encryption on)
| ziml77 wrote:
| That's some serious bullshit logic from them. What the fuck
| does encryption do if the key is stored right next to the
| drive?
| freedom42 wrote:
| Wow that's actually really sad. Imagine that happening to
| people without backups (means many regular people).
|
| The way I do it is I format the drive on Linux. Then format
| it as ext4 with LUKS encryption. Were you on Windows?
| JoshTko wrote:
| Should software companies give access to source code so that
| users can fix bugs?
| Lio wrote:
| This, I believe, was the original driver for Richard Stallman
| to start the GNU project.
|
| The story I heard him tell was about two printers at MIT.
|
| An old one with source code available which they were able to
| upgrade with many new network features.
|
| The other a modern one with better performance but closed
| source software.
|
| Stallman actually found out that a colleague had been given
| access to the source code but told explicitly not to allow
| other MIT staff to see it.
|
| That infuriated him enough to create the Free Software
| movement.
| foobarbecue wrote:
| Yes
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-03-16 23:02 UTC)