[HN Gopher] New York Senate passes Right to Repair bill
___________________________________________________________________
New York Senate passes Right to Repair bill
Author : tk75x
Score : 554 points
Date : 2021-06-11 11:55 UTC (11 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.ifixit.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.ifixit.com)
| mbostleman wrote:
| I appreciate the immediate problem and I guess policy like this
| is better than nothing. But to me the cause of this is less of a
| lack of "rights" as it is a lack of competition in the market. I
| would much rather choose products that have a more open and
| repairable architecture rather than have additional regulation.
| elliekelly wrote:
| Not really related but ifixit really is fantastic. I've fixed so
| many things I had no business being able to fix on my own thanks
| to their guides and videos. I wish more people would turn to
| their site before throwing stuff away.
| kgwxd wrote:
| I've had great success with iFixit guids too. 2 iPhones and a
| iPad. But I've been a bit weary of doing that since last time I
| got a screen where the connection wires that came with it
| weren't quite right and caused the iPad to get hot enough to
| burn skin and cause heat warnings from the OS. In that case, it
| was possible to reuse the original connector to fix the issue,
| but my trust in third-party parts diminished quite a bit.
| joncrane wrote:
| I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories, but I do wonder about the
| idea that by making the power source impossible to remove, the
| phone can be a surveillance device even when the user thinks
| it's powered off.
|
| I wonder what the minds of HN think about this scenario. Is the
| move towards non-removable batteries perhaps related to this?
|
| I also wonder about the movement away from physical headphone
| jacks....I imagine bluetooth is easier to hack then a physical
| cable.
|
| Edit: thanks for engaging on this. You helped me discount this
| theory.
| nine_k wrote:
| If you want your cell phone to disappear from the airwaves,
| fold it in a piece of foil. Quite cheap and infeasible to
| overcome.
|
| There are more realistic things like that, e.g. foil-
| protected credit card / access card wallets that prevent
| accidental contactless reading.
| salawat wrote:
| Designwise, it's about waterproofing.
|
| You have to undersize parts for a watertight fit, which can
| result in undesirable characteristics when deformation or
| dropping of a device does happen. There's also an increasing
| tendency to use the outer shell of a device as a heat-
| sink/radiator. Adhesives enable this type of design but make
| it darn near impossible to maintain.
|
| I'm not going to say there isn't a mustache twirler somewhere
| with surveillance plans of grandeur... but unfortunately the
| truth may be closer to it's cheaper to buy a tube of glue
| than to get a tub of small, self-tapping screws.
|
| That's just my 2 cents from having torn things apart and put
| them back together to varying degrees of success.
| hellbannedguy wrote:
| I'd be ok with certain smart phones as the exemption, but
| not electronics in computers, home electronics, cars,
| tractors, etc.
|
| And if it's truly about waterproofing, the companies better
| include water damage in their measly warranties.
| salawat wrote:
| Cars and tractor PCB's as far as I'm aware tap into the
| vehicle's electrical subsystem, therefore living off the
| battery. This is why if you don't drive a vehicle or use
| a tractor regularly, you should be keeping the battery on
| a maintainer. Most control units have parasitic load to
| retain ECU state between engine on states, and to keep
| vehicle security systems doing their thing. They don't
| usually have dedicated batteries beyond maybe a button
| for cmos, but again, I haven't seen that in an automotive
| context. That'll flatline a lead acid battery if you
| don't drive it or run it for a couple weeks. Guess how I
| know?
|
| Now, a lot of cars increasingly DO have dedicated
| antennas for OTA updates, phoning home telemetry and
| things like that. There might be some wireless
| CANBUS(It's either that or CAN, I don't have it on the
| top of my head at the moment).
|
| The real culprit for me is bloody tablets and laptops. No
| excuses. The ultra-thin form factors are nothing but
| regressions in maintainability to me. Smartphones I don't
| even grudgingly accept anymore. The material selection
| and designs have biased only achieving realistic
| resilience through off loading that facet of design to
| accessory manufacturers. Anybody with a "naked" handset
| should know that current marketing/consumer quality
| metrics are not aligned on durability in normal chaotic
| human usage at all.
| viraptor wrote:
| That's unlikely because people would notice the devices
| working while off. Your power draw comes from two sources
| unless you run games and heavy apps: display and radios - and
| there's enough interest and measurement happening there that
| people would notice radios activating when they shouldn't.
|
| There's also lots of interest in tracking device
| communication and I really expect someone to notice a
| randomly appearing device where there shouldn't be one.
| hutzlibu wrote:
| The attack scenario is, that the mobile just listens to you
| via the microphone and saves it - and later when normaly
| turned on, sends away all the data. All of this on a very
| low hardware layer, so no need for complex cpu operations
| or engage with the OS(in case of turned "off"). So very low
| power demand.
|
| And it would also not show up, in anyone doing
| radiotraffic/wlan analysis.
|
| So it would be indeed very hard to spot. (don't have the
| sources, but I think on some defcon was a talk with proof
| of concept about this)
|
| So if anyone thinks, he is a specific target of some
| powerful intelligence agency, (like someone strongly
| engaged with the opposition in Hong Kong) - I think they
| definitely should consider this scenario as a possible one
| (but I don't know how likely it actually is, probably not
| high, if your are not considered a leader).
|
| But that this change for non-removable batteries in general
| was made, so that even the paranoid part of the population
| can be tracked non-stop by the global Illuminati ... is
| indeed very much tinfoil area.
|
| But the part about your phone maybe spying on you, when you
| think it is off:
|
| Well, Snowden actually said, they can do it.
|
| https://www.androidauthority.com/watch-edward-snowden-
| phones...
| addicted wrote:
| Let's just engage this for a moment.
|
| The first thing to ask if we think that the non removable
| batteries is related to surveillance is how a non removable
| battery would help surveillance. And it's hard to see how it
| would. The vast majority of people would leave their
| removable batteries in the phone with it on anyways, since
| they don't expect the surveillance. The next level of
| paranoid people would switch off the phone, in which case it
| wouldn't matter if the battery was removable or not. The only
| crowd it would affect is the people who are paranoid enough
| that they would additionally also remove the battery. But if
| they are so careful, if they do have a phone with a non
| removable battery, then they have a simple alternate solution
| of simply locking up the phone in a lockbox and not taking it
| into the room you're having the discussion (or taking it
| around with you if you're worried about tracking).
|
| Insisting on non removable batteries will give you an
| extremely minor benefit (people who are careful enough to
| want to remove their batteries for privacy, but not dedicated
| enough that given a non removable battery, they will still
| keep their phone around and won't find an alternate
| solution).
|
| So really, it doesn't make sense at all.
|
| Further, there's a completely explainable, and frankly
| predictable, trajectory and goal that led to non removable
| batteries. The same goal that led to other changes such as
| the removing of the headphone jack, etc.
| taytus wrote:
| >Let's just engage this for a moment.
|
| Please no.
| vendiddy wrote:
| Understand your reaction, but I think engaging like that
| is more effective in dispelling a conspiracy theory than
| shooting it down.
| ncphil wrote:
| "a completely explainable, and frankly oredictable,
| trajectory and goal that ked to... changes such as the
| removing of the headphone jack, etc." Bad taste?
| Narcissistic corporate executives... with impractically bad
| taste?
|
| :-) Yeah, no need to go to a conspiracy theory with no
| rational basis or factual evidence when stupidity,greed,
| incompetence or a combination thereof will explain the
| result. It seems to me that these kinds of theories only
| build up the power and influence of those petty industrial
| tyrants to the detriment of all.
|
| Still, cold comfort to those of us who have lost the
| replaceable battery option and dread the day headphone
| jacks disappear forever.
| Grimm665 wrote:
| Take their guides with a bit of a grain of salt. Having gone
| through Apple ACMT training back in 2015, many of the iFixit
| guides have recommendations or procedures that do not follow
| official Apple guidelines. In most cases it doesn't matter, but
| it can come back to bite.
|
| For example there are torque specifications for some of the
| screws in the trashcan Mac Pro. I doubt getting the torque
| wrong would cause any issue, and Apple is probably being a bit
| pedantic. However, iFixit's thermal paste application article
| specifically recommends spreading thermal paste with your
| finger[1], which is a TERRIBLE idea and goes directly against
| Apple repair procedures.
|
| So use common sense when working with iFixit guides, they
| should not be considered replacements for official Apple repair
| guides, though they are far better than nothing, which is what
| Apple provides to the general public :).
|
| [1]
| https://www.ifixit.com/Guide/How+to+Apply+Thermal+Paste/744#...
| Y_Y wrote:
| I don't give a shit what Apple thinks, and wouldn't bother
| seeking their opinion. I've replaced probably every part in
| an old MacBook Air I have and the non-Apple online
| documentation has been really good.
|
| All that being said, thermal paste is pretty poisonous, I'd
| never even considered someone would just splodge it on with
| their finger.
| only_as_i_fall wrote:
| If NY really wants to cut e-waste they should require removable
| batteries in cellphones and laptops.
|
| The move to non-removable batteries always seemed like a thinly
| veild money grab to me.
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| Non-removable batteries are annoying, but they allow you to
| make devices which are _much_ more compact, or which have a
| larger battery at the same size.
|
| The battery in e.g. an iPhone 6S takes some work to replace,
| but it's still quite easy for a repair shop to do, so that
| seems like a very reasonable trade-off to me.
| andrei_says_ wrote:
| What about non-removable batteries that are also glued in?
| With a excessive amount of glue?
|
| Making them doubly non-removable?
| hutzlibu wrote:
| There is the valid argument, of sealing it in, for water
| protection.
|
| I am still looking for a new phone, which removable
| battery.
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| > There is the valid argument, of sealing it in, for
| water protection.
|
| There is _an_ argument, perhaps, I don 't know about a
| "valid" one.
|
| The difference between "the battery can be swapped with a
| screw driver" and "the battery can be swapped by a repair
| shop in 15 minutes" isn't really that large, so if it can
| make devices more compact, sure, why not?
|
| Batteries that outright can't be replaced are something
| else entirely. Maybe some consumers are willing to make
| the trade, but it's environmentally irresponsible. The
| Airpods in particular really piss me off given all of
| Apple's environmental messaging.
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| _That_ is a totally different story! No, I for one am not
| okay with that at all.
| TravHatesMe wrote:
| That is already the case for many power tools and appliances,
| the universal battery is usually more expensive than the tool.
| kgwxd wrote:
| Standardized would be nice too. I have at least 3 laptops that
| could be put to good use but the batteries are no longer
| available, 2 of them don't even work with the plug unless
| there's a battery in there for some god awful reason.
| driverdan wrote:
| The cells in the packs can be replaced.
| kgwxd wrote:
| Really? Never thought of that, is that a DIY thing or would
| I need to take it someplace?
| InvaderFizz wrote:
| Just search for that model laptop battery on Amazon.
| You'll likely find a slew of Chinese replacement
| batteries.
|
| See if there is a YouTube or iFixit tear down guide, take
| the bottom cover off, replace battery, put the cover back
| on.
| hutzlibu wrote:
| So ... the DIY is subjective. You don't want to screw up
| and later have your laptop (and house) on fire.
| hughrr wrote:
| That's the risk you take on with promoting right to
| repair.
|
| It's be better if we had stronger consumer legislation
| globally that forces manufacturer responsibility rather
| than demand we can do the job ourselves.
|
| Imagine if you bought a laptop and the battery died after
| 2 years and the state mandated option was for the
| manufacturer to buy it back at 60% of the original value
| because it didn't last the prescribed 6 year life span.
| Removable batteries would appear overnight in everything.
|
| Imagine that at the end of the useful life the
| manufacturer had to buy it back for 20% of the value to
| recycle it. Global trash heaps would disappear overnight.
| hutzlibu wrote:
| I like the idea of mature, self-responsible people.
|
| Who can be trusted to make decisions by themself.
|
| And the right to repair aims not, that everyone should
| fix their devices by themself, but that everyone who is
| capable, has the possibility to do so. Like repair shops.
| Or skilled individuals. And those who think they are more
| competent, than they actually are ... find always ways of
| shooting themself in the foot. I would not want to punish
| everyone else because of it.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| If the world wad run by mature responsible people then we
| wouldnt have the issues of e-waste, more plastic than
| fish in the ocean and climate change.
|
| Systemic problems require systemic solutions that achieve
| results in the real world, not just ideal one
| hughrr wrote:
| I think if you look at the actual current state of the
| repair industry it'd scare you off the idea fairly
| quickly. There are very few competent people and even
| fewer business where competence is promoted.
|
| I'm going to slap Rossman here as well who does some
| pretty scary hack jobbery and passes it off as a fit for
| purpose repair rather than a data recovery last resort.
| hutzlibu wrote:
| Well, I know my part of bad stories, too.
|
| But I think, with removing barriers, the repair industry
| should improve and rather decline.
| hughrr wrote:
| Perhaps I'm old and cynical but we'll see if that
| actually occurs. I admire your optimism though :)
| Guest42 wrote:
| It makes everything disposable. I've seen a few 200 dollar
| health devices that fail quickly because they use cheap cr 2032
| batteries that can't be accessed.
|
| I miss the days of clip in batteries. I still have a 2013
| laptop like that.
| tachyonbeam wrote:
| But this would force your laptop to be a whole 1.8cm thick!
| Unthinkable!
| ExtraE wrote:
| You joke, but LG makes a <3lb (1.36kg) 17" laptop. That's
| impressive. (I can't vouch for its quality, I don't have
| one).
|
| Samsung makes a 15.6" laptop that weighs 2.6lbs, which is
| extremely practical. I'm planning on getting one. I
| wouldn't be if it had the bulk and weight of a removable
| battery.
| only_as_i_fall wrote:
| I literally just don't believe that this is a real
| problem. Old school laptop batteries were large, but how
| much of that is really needed? In theory you could add a
| connector and be 90% of the way there. Put a panel on
| attached with a simple screw and you're golden.
| hutzlibu wrote:
| "weight of a removable battery"
|
| Why would a removable battery be more heavy? More bulky,
| probably and with more plastic also a bit more heavy. But
| not much, as the heavy part is not the plastic.
| tachyonbeam wrote:
| Maybe we could build laptop cases out of carbon fiber and
| get the best of both worlds? Or at least make laptop
| cases easier to open for servicing, with standard screws
| and no plastic clamps.
| nashashmi wrote:
| Agree. Non removable batteries is an aesthetic approach to
| consumer devices. It has no place in industrial applications.
| An analogy would be a decorated plastic bag selling seeds at
| hardware store, Or a brown ugly burlap selling seeds to
| landscape contractors. One is for consumers. The other is for
| the expert.
| hellbannedguy wrote:
| Politicians use e-waste as the reason use for these RTR bills,
| but my concern is simple.
|
| I'm tired of my closet of broken devices. I don't like spending
| money on a new item when I was happy with the old model.
|
| I am tired of not seeing all the trouble codes on my car when
| it breaks down.
|
| I don't like spending money on electronics because a company
| won't let me fix their product, restricts information, or spare
| parts.
|
| I came from a family that was too poor to buy new, and repair
| was just expected.
| ryandrake wrote:
| I'm tired of my closet of broken devices, too. But I'm also
| tired of my closet of _perfectly working devices_ , which the
| manufacturer just up and decided to no longer ship software
| updates for. Hardware that's totally functional as the first
| day I bought it, except 1. with software that no longer does
| what it's supposed to because backends have been turned off,
| and 2. the device will be 0wned instantly if I ever connect
| to the Internet.
|
| We need mandatory bootloader unlocking for products that the
| manufacture finds unprofitable to ship software updates for.
| dopidopHN wrote:
| My work want to force me to update my PERSONAL phone because
| apple do not support very old Iphone anymore. ( they gave me
| another phone for work stuff, 2FA and what not... )
|
| this old phone works really well still. I do not conduct any
| work related activities on it. But they see it as a attack
| vector I guess?
| [deleted]
| ghaff wrote:
| If you don't do any work-related activities on it and you
| have a work phone, how/why are they requiring you to get a
| new _personal_ phone?
|
| If one does do work things on their phone and, especially
| if you have MDM installed, it is of course reasonable to
| require you to be on a current OS. And Apple is pretty good
| about length of support but it's not forever.
| myfavoritedog wrote:
| _4. Excludes motor vehicle manufacturers, manufacturer of motor
| vehicle equipment, or motor vehicle dealers and medical devices
| or a digital electronic product or embedded software found in
| medical settings._
|
| For all the bravado about standing up to powerful interests, this
| shows you who the most powerful interests are in that space.
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| Restrictions on medical devices are very reasonable though.
| They aren't something people can freely hack on. Errors can
| cause decisions to be made based on incorrect information,
| expose people to radioactivity...
|
| Even the GPLv3 makes an exception for this class of device.
| kwiens wrote:
| We excluded autos because the Massachusetts auto right to
| repair bill (most recently updated in November) covers this,
| and there's a nationwide MOU. Tesla is the only manufacturer
| that has not signed this MOU.
|
| There is a lawsuit around that ballot initiative, and iFixit
| and EFF just filed an Amicus on Monday supporting the law.
| https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/06/eff-files-amicus-brief...
|
| Sometimes it's better to fight the giants one arena at a time.
| jonny_eh wrote:
| What about "digital electronic product"? Doesn't that exclude
| phones and laptops?
| kube-system wrote:
| There's no comma after that phrase indicating that it's a
| separate item in the list.
|
| I believe that is intended to be read as "digital
| electronic product or embedded software found in medical
| settings."
|
| After all, the description of what the bill _does_ apply to
| is "digital electronic equipment". Interpreting it to
| apply to "equipment" but not "products" doesn't really make
| sense.
| t-writescode wrote:
| What about farm vehicles?
| slim wrote:
| What you said does not make any sense. What's the problem if
| the law is overlapping ?
| efnx wrote:
| Instead of fighting the auto industry giants over this
| bill, they left them out - that way they can focus on
| fighting the info industry giants.
|
| The auto industry giants are still being fought - just not
| over this bill.
|
| I think that if the laws overlap it will be opposed by
| multiple industry giants and will be harder to pass. At
| least that's what it seems from the post above.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Divide and conquer. Attack each enemy on a separate
| front.
| vikingerik wrote:
| Let's interpret this the right way: this doesn't mean "we're
| not going to handle motor vehicles or medical", it means "motor
| vehicles and medical are out of scope for _this_ measure. "
| They can be handled separately, and that's reasonable given the
| greater safety concerns of those industries.
| JAlexoid wrote:
| Right to repair started out as a demand by farmers to be able
| to repair their John Deere's.
|
| This "greater safety" concern is nothing but masquerade.
| ping_pong wrote:
| The best way to kill something is by saying "yes, we'll get
| to that next, don't worry!" and then never get to it.
| spicybright wrote:
| it can go both ways. Yes you're right, but making huge
| changes that disturb every industry makes a hell of an
| opposition to fight.
| neallindsay wrote:
| Plus it gives Apple an out as soon as they release a car, which
| is extremely weird.
| nolok wrote:
| If that metric is true doesn't that already give google, lg,
| samsung, ... an out ? "manufacturer of motor vehicle
| equipment" is sufficiently large to include everyone we want
| that law for.
| TruthSHIFT wrote:
| So, what is actually included? Isn't everything electronic now?
| exporectomy wrote:
| Hard to parse all those commas and conjunctions. Are you sure
| "digital electronic product" isn't related to medical
| devices?
| inops wrote:
| It's "digital electronic product...found in medical
| settings", I'd imagine
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| So how many nurses need an iPhone to exempt Apple? Or would
| something like a COVID tracking app make it a digital
| electronic product found in a medical setting?
| jonny_eh wrote:
| It's comma soup, there's no way to parse this reliably.
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| The sole "and" combined with the bill's use of "digital
| electronic product" outside of section four makes it
| fairly clear that it's only discussing medical devices.
| "You have the right to repair digital electronic
| product's except digital electronic products" doesn't
| make much sense.
| fitchjo wrote:
| Am I being a bit naive to think that this has more to do with
| public safety? In theory, there is some increased level of
| regulation/review of the car and medical device manufacturers
| that limits the risk these repairs aren't done to an
| appropriate standard? You can make a trade-off between standard
| of repair and price for your iPhone that only impacts the
| device, but cars and medical devices not properly repaired
| could impact a life.
| TaylorAlexander wrote:
| Louis Rossman gave an example which I believe really
| happened. A surgery chair that cost tens of thousands of
| dollars needed a new riser motor. Just an electric motor to
| move the chair up and down. But the company that makes the
| electric motor had an agreement with the chair manufacturer
| not to sell replacement parts. So the only recourse instead
| of replacing a $500 motor is to replace an entire surgery
| chair for tens of thousands of dollars.
|
| Given the cost of medical care in this country I think it
| would be a very good thing if that agreement not to sell
| parts was against the law. Surely an electric motor to raise
| a chair up and down could be replaced with the correct part
| without compromising anyone's safety.
| znpy wrote:
| > Given the cost of medical care in this country
|
| although in this specific case in example, if the country
| you're talking about are the US, having access to the $500
| motor only means wider profit margins for the hostpital,
| not necessarily lower bills for hospitalized people.
| wdn wrote:
| You do understand the reason why US has such high health
| care cost is because the only player getting screw is the
| payer, also known as the patient.
| znpy wrote:
| yes, but nah.
|
| the reason the US has such high healthcare is because
| healthcare is both private and paid-by-insurance.
|
| a lot of other nations have free healthcare, both in the
| american continent and in Europe.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > the reason the US has such high healthcare is because
| healthcare is both private and paid-by-insurance.
|
| Lots of countries have combined public/private systems
| and get equal or better results with lower per capita and
| per GDP expenditure than the US.
|
| The US has expensive healthcare because it has an
| exceptionally poorly designed public/private system, not
| because it has a public/private system.
| TaylorAlexander wrote:
| Perhaps, but it's clear we must both lower costs (fix
| repair laws) and provide free medical care for everyone.
| So fixing repair is one important step towards an end
| goal of health care for everyone.
| spicybright wrote:
| I agree, but I'd also say there's a line between
| inconsequential things like a chair motor, and something
| giving life support to someone.
|
| It would suck to die because the repair guy didn't solder
| the wire correctly.
|
| It's really tough to draw that line though, and it's in
| the manufactures interest $ + lawsuit wise to play it
| safe.
| noizejoy wrote:
| Money wasted leads to money not available for life
| support.
| TaylorAlexander wrote:
| Regulating the quality of repair is a separate issue from
| sourcing parts. The hospital and their insurance company
| will be well inclined to make sure that repairs are done
| properly, but we should let the people who own the chair
| (and some oversight board) decide policy for those
| repairs, not equipment manufacturers who have a vested
| interest in selling new equipment.
| Causality1 wrote:
| Would you rather have amateur repairs being done by someone
| who has access to proper documentation or by someone who does
| not?
| waych wrote:
| This assumes that the first party seller is competent,
| motivated and capable of using their first party documents
| to good effect performing repairs. Consider the Apple
| Genius bar for an easy counter example.
|
| edit: may have misinterpreted what you wrote. Nobody should
| have to have amateurs perform repairs, whether they are
| first party or not.
| Causality1 wrote:
| Nobody should be forced to use an amateur, certainly. I'm
| saying that if you can't afford a professional repair,
| you want the amateur to have access to the best
| information available, whether that person is you or
| someone else.
| valine wrote:
| Also right to repair obviously can't apply to an implanted
| device. Those devices are hermetically sealed and disposed of
| after explant.
| TedDoesntTalk wrote:
| Medtronic insulin pumps are routinely hacked by their
| owners:
|
| https://www.google.com/amp/s/medicalxpress.com/news/2019-06
| -...
|
| Sorry for the Google amp link.
|
| There's also this kind of medical device hacking (again not
| black hat):
|
| https://hackaday.com/2020/07/15/diy-dongle-breathes-life-
| int...
|
| And open-source ventilator software:
|
| https://hackaday.com/2020/03/30/professional-ventilator-
| desi...
| zeusk wrote:
| Right to repair isn't exactly supporting homebrew
| software although it'd help to have schematics.
| Veedrac wrote:
| This is the wrong place to regulate that. If buildings need
| to adhere to certain fire safety requirements, you have a law
| that says people modifying the property need to follow those
| requirements. You don't make a law that says only the
| original builder of the house is allowed to repair the house.
| [deleted]
| syshum wrote:
| Public Safety is never a reason to oppose Right to Repair, to
| the extent there are safety concerns they can be elevated
| with out needing to curb independent or self repair
|
| That said, Safety is red herring that the industries use to
| justify their anti-consumer actions with zero actual data to
| back their position.
|
| The Record are cars is clear and estiblished people self
| repair and use independant repair all the time to fix
| mechnical safety systems like breaks with no systemic issues
| or damage to public safety
|
| For medical devices I have yet to see any data the
| independent repair causes any harm, in fact I believe the the
| US Government has a study that states Independent Repair of
| Medical Equipment is critical to maintaining the US Health
| System, so in the case of Health Care prohibitions on
| independent repair may CAUSE public health issues by taking
| critical equipment out of service waiting on "authorized"
| repair or parts
| JAlexoid wrote:
| These laws obligate the manufacturer to release maintenance
| and repair manuals, like the ones they provide to the
| authorized service centers; and ban all litigation related to
| someone providing unauthorized services, etc...
|
| Depending on the law, it may also require more documentation,
| ban on total lockdown of devices and obligation to sell spare
| parts(but you often can buy genuine spare parts through
| service centers)
|
| Right to fix also doesn't cover warranties, as you will loose
| your warranty when doing it yourself.
|
| For cars or medical equipment - that's clearly political
| influence, masquerading as "public safety".
|
| There's nothing stopping me from modifying my car to be very
| dangerous right now, without even affecting my warranty. The
| difference - I cannot install a third party keyfob, because
| the protocol is locked down.
|
| The kind of medical equipment that hospitals require, already
| comes with multi-decade support. And your CPAP device can be
| serviced by someone without manufacturer specific
| training(that costs a fortune, for little practical value).
| TaylorAlexander wrote:
| > Right to fix also doesn't cover warranties, as you will
| loose your warranty when doing it yourself.
|
| The Magnussen-Moss warranty act of 1975 states (IANAL) that
| a repair cannot void the warranty unless the manufacturer
| can prove that your repair caused the damage in question.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson%E2%80%93Moss_Warrant
| y...
| kube-system wrote:
| This is correct. Those "warranty void if broken" stickers
| are only worth as much as they mislead people into not
| bothering to push for warranty claims. (and if it's on
| something that's not a "consumer good")
| joshspankit wrote:
| You've used a grey argument. Apple themselves have argued
| that one of the reasons they have to limit repair is for
| public safety (someone could have a battery explode if they
| pierce it, for example), whereas we could also argue the
| other side: that if someone modifies their own medical device
| and gets hurt because of it that they legally only hurt
| themselves because they had the right to make that choice.
|
| IMO it comes down to this: do we advocate for laws that give
| companies the ability to decide what is right/safe for the
| public, or do we advocate for laws that reflect trust in the
| individual?
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| > IMO it comes down to this: do we advocate for laws that
| give companies the ability to decide what is right/safe for
| the public, or do we advocate for laws that reflect trust
| in the individual?
|
| This is a really great way to put it, and it applies
| broadly to so many fundamental disagreements in the tech
| world.
|
| I firmly believe it's better to trust the individual--so I
| think users should be able to sideload iOS apps (only if
| they want to) and install their own root certificates.
| Others think individuals can't be trusted, and so we should
| let tech companies dictate what is safe for everyone else.
| spicybright wrote:
| Absolutely when it comes to tech. It's fairly
| inconsequential sideloading something to your phone.
|
| Medical devices I think should need a someone well versed
| to work on it.
|
| With cars, the current model most states in the US have
| is a good middle ground. You can do whatever you want to
| your car, but it needs to pass a safety inspection every
| 2 years to drive it legally.
|
| The inspections in my state are fairly comprehensive.
| Airbags, seat belts, headlight brightness, and structural
| stability of the frame to name a few.
|
| It also helps the US has a strong car culture with tons
| of experienced DIY-ers, which I imagine helps.
| kube-system wrote:
| > With cars, the current model most states in the US have
| is a good middle ground. You can do whatever you want to
| your car, but it needs to pass a safety inspection every
| 2 years to drive it legally.
|
| Only 4 US states have biannual safety inspections.
| Another 11 have annual inspections. The other 35 states +
| DC do not have safety inspections.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_inspection_in_the_U
| nit...
| Teknoman117 wrote:
| I think we should just have some pretty clear literature
| that if you modify a device, the manufacturer is not
| responsible for any injuries it might cause you.
|
| Modify a dishwasher and now it fills your kitchen with
| soap bubbles? Modify a CPAP machine and get killed by it?
| Not the manufacturer's fault.
|
| The US is too litigation happy as it is...
| bastijn wrote:
| By passing a right to repair on medical devices you also
| open up the aftermarket for repairs. Would you like to be
| handed a medical device by your insurance company that
| has been repaired by an untrained person that considers
| himself to be a handyman? Or be put in a scanner that was
| repaired by a service engineer from a broker that is
| cutting corners to win in the competing market.
|
| Without clear quality and regulatory control there must
| be an objective method to discern between personal
| repairs and non-personal ones.
|
| Disclaimer: didn't read the actual right to repair being
| passed in detail. Not sure if it does discern already.
| timzentu wrote:
| But if the insurance company doesn't want to be liable
| for it it would require a certified and/or bonded tech.
| In the US cars don't even require this to be stringent.
| You don't need any schooling to become ASC Certified
| mechanic, just take a test, no limiting factors for how
| often you need to recertify, or if you fail it so many
| times you need to school/train. At least in Canada you
| need to go to school, and then be a journeyman for a
| number of years before you can actually be a mechanic.
|
| To really fix it we need a non-profit group to be in
| charge of the certification, preferably one who can be
| held accountable for failure due to their certification.
| My removing the incentive for profit we make it so the
| Medical industry won't try to control it, the insurance
| industry to mitigate their requirements, and government
| from trying to have political agendas pushed.
|
| I have more that I would love to put in here but my
| employer has opinions that might differ from mine, and
| can be directly involved with some things that the law
| can impact.
| rascul wrote:
| > In the US cars don't even require this to be stringent.
| You don't need any schooling to become ASC Certified
| mechanic, just take a test, no limiting factors for how
| often you need to recertify, or if you fail it so many
| times you need to school/train.
|
| There's no legal requirement in the US federally, or in
| any state I'm aware of, to have any certifications for
| general automotive repair. The EPA does require it for
| working on air conditioning systems, though. [0] However,
| many employers do require certification and/or will
| assist in getting the certifications. Some of the smaller
| shops are more likely to have mechanics without
| certifications or with expired certifications (I believe
| ASE certs are five years). ASE does require hands on
| experience for their certifications in addition to the
| test, though. [1]
|
| The BLS also describes this, probably better than I do.
| [2]
|
| [0] https://www.epa.gov/mvac/section-609-technician-
| training-and...
|
| [1] https://www.ase.com/work-experience
|
| [2] https://www.bls.gov/ooh/installation-maintenance-and-
| repair/...
| kube-system wrote:
| > I think we should just have some pretty clear
| literature that if you modify a device, the manufacturer
| is not responsible for any injuries it might cause you.
|
| That's not nearly nuanced enough. Manufacturers should
| still be responsible unless they can prove you caused the
| failure. We currently require this standard for something
| as simple warranty coverage, we ought to require it for
| something as severe as _death_.
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| IANAL or even a law-enthusiast, but surely we already
| have case law on this if nothing else? You can't sue the
| car company if you remove the breaks in your car...
| right?
| kube-system wrote:
| I'm not a lawyer either, but I'm fairly sure that "we
| didn't cause the harm" is a good defense to a claim that
| they caused harm.
| wiz21c wrote:
| > IMO it comes down to this: do we advocate for laws that
| give companies the ability to decide what is right/safe
| for the public, or do we advocate for laws that reflect
| trust in the individual?
|
| In the US, I think, some companies sell weapons and
| nobody seems to care if people can hurt themselves with
| them.
| vageli wrote:
| It's ridiculous they sell knives in supermarkets, where
| anyone could procure them and without background checks.
| ff317 wrote:
| The comparison is more appropriate than you maybe even
| intended. Cars are considered weapons (e.g. driving at
| someone is assault with a deadly weapon), and cars are
| very dangerous in general and kill lots of people (and
| not just the drivers!). Yet, we still want right-to-
| repair on cars.
| naikrovek wrote:
| we HAVE right to repair on cars, and we've had it for
| decades. it's why the OBD-II port is standardized and
| mandated. it's why you can buy tools built only by the
| auto manufacturers for working on their own cars. it's
| why auto manufacturers are required to sell every part
| and every tool to end customers for at least 10 years
| after a model year is no longer manufactured. it's why
| third-party replacement parts are available AT ALL.
|
| people forget all this. this is the same thing people
| want for farm vehicles and personal electronics.
|
| we got it done for cars and trucks in the late 1980s. I
| don't understand why it's so hard to get lawmakers on the
| side of the customer --their constituents-- today.
| sneak wrote:
| I agree that individuals should control their own
| devices.
|
| I also agree with Apple's implicit claim that if iOS
| users could sideload apps, millions of idiot iOS users
| would get their devices owned after they followed some
| "follow these seven steps to get free
| $POPULAR_MOBILE_GAME tokens!" guide they found on the
| web, making the platform less trustworthy overall.
|
| Apple makes a good argument that buying an iPhone is also
| buying, in a sense, a remote managed security service for
| the device at the same time. The net effect of this is
| that millions of people now have devices mostly free of
| the most egregious malware (and it's limited to just
| spyware, delivered via the App Store). For most users,
| this is a better state of affairs (at least in peacetime,
| or outside of China/Vietnam/Russia/etc).
| wernercd wrote:
| and yet, despite occasional problems, the same hasn't
| happened in the Android sphere with sideloading.
| Problems? Sure... but not "ZOMG MILLIONS!"
|
| "Apple makes a good argument" Their argument doesn't give
| near enough excuses for their mafia level racket to shake
| down businesses of protection money. "Pay us or Joey will
| break your kneecaps. Its for your own protection."
| sneak wrote:
| > _and yet, despite occasional problems, the same hasn 't
| happened in the Android sphere with sideloading.
| Problems? Sure... but not "ZOMG MILLIONS!"_
|
| Millions of Android devices have malware problems, yes. I
| might even agree with a claim that it is ZOMG millions.
|
| Estimates claim that as far back as 2016, a million new
| Android devices were being infected with malware per
| month. The current figures are estimated by AV vendors at
| 4-7 million infections per month.
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| Your first paragraph contradicts the second and third
| paragraphs! If you believe that individuals should
| control their own devices, why are you in favor of Apple
| retaining control of every iPhone it sells? Pick one!
| sneak wrote:
| I didn't claim to be in favor of Apple retaining control
| of every iPhone they sell. Please re-read my comment.
|
| My claim is that for most users of iPhones, the situation
| of Apple being in control of their device, rather than
| themselves, results in a better outcome for that user
| (and is oftentimes explicitly preferred by that user as a
| result, and is reflected in their purchase of an iPhone).
|
| In fact, Apple delegates control of an iPhone's userspace
| execution environment to any iPhone owner who wants it:
| they will give you a signing cert for use in xcode to run
| any app you want on your own device (no developer
| subscription necessary). This is how AltStore works, and
| allows AltStore users to run emulator apps on the iPhones
| they own.
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| > My claim is that for most users of iPhones, the
| situation of Apple being in control of their device,
| rather than themselves, results in a better outcome for
| that user (and is oftentimes explicitly preferred by that
| user as a result, and is reflected in their purchase of
| an iPhone).
|
| Okay, but that comes out to the same thing, since I can't
| buy an iPhone which isn't Apple managed. If Apple offered
| a choice, that would be one thing--but they don't.
|
| > In fact, Apple delegates control of an iPhone's
| execution environment to any iPhone owner who wants it:
| they will give you a signing cert for use in xcode to run
| any app you want on your own device.
|
| What they give you is the ability to sign up to three
| apps at a time, all of which expire after seven days.
| It's not useful for anything but testing.
|
| Plus, you're stuck in the App Store sandbox. You can't
| downgrade to an earlier operating system, you can't
| inspect the HTTPS traffic being sent out of your phone,
| and you can't even run anything that uses a JIT.
| sneak wrote:
| > _Okay, but that comes out to the same thing, since I
| can 't buy an iPhone which isn't Apple managed. If Apple
| offered a choice, that would be one thing--but they
| don't._
|
| Well, you know this state of affairs well now, so when
| you buy an iPhone you willingly opt in to these remote
| management restrictions. There are lots of smartphones
| you can buy without such cryptographic boot restrictions.
|
| Many people willingly choose iPhones (even given these
| constraints), and would prefer a remote party manage
| their device's security.
|
| Apple's argument is a legitimate one, and you should be
| able to operate in the market in this fashion. Nobody's
| forced to buy an iPhone if they don't like how the
| bootloader is configured or the App Store is run.
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| > Many people willingly choose iPhones (even given these
| constraints), and would prefer a remote party manage
| their device's security.
|
| I mean, but you're making a big assumption there! I buy
| iPhones in _spite_ of those restrictions, because the
| only other options have worse processors and cameras, and
| because most of the people I know use iMessage.
|
| I'd pay double the cost of a normal iPhone for a Security
| Research Device, if they were available to the general
| public.
| Dracophoenix wrote:
| It's only a good argument if you assume that Apple is
| fundamentally interested in consumer security. It isn't.
| Apple is fundamentally interested in control. Security,
| however Apple defines it, is a chosen means to the extent
| that is fulfills the company's primary goal. That's not
| to say that Apple should behave like a charitable force.
| A company's goals and decisions are its own prerogative.
| But as we've seen with the revelations of the Epic trial,
| the Darth Vader-style rule changes, updates that
| interfere with the basic operation of the device, etc.,
| you're not just buying into a remotely managed system
| like a remote desktop at a colocation center. You're
| buying into the blackbox of Apple's present and future
| business decisions whether that suits your needs or not.
| Should security no longer justify the cost to Apple,
| they'll contort the meaning of the word to suit their
| ends just like Tim Cook has done to the word "equal"
| during his congressional hearing.
| sneak wrote:
| > _You 're buying into the blackbox of Apple's present
| and future business decisions whether whether that suits
| your needs or not._
|
| You don't have to install updates.
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| iOS updates aren't forced, no.
|
| However, if you install an update to try it out, or
| because you didn't realize that it would e.g. break 32bit
| support, you can never downgrade again (unless you happen
| to be within a two-week-ish period.)
| Dracophoenix wrote:
| You can't downgrade/upgrade the OS to a specific version
| of an update after a fortnight or thereabouts. That's an
| artificial constraint applied by Apple. It's not even
| possible to do so offline with iTunes even if one has the
| IPSWs. If you check the /r/jailbreak subreddit, talented
| coders have to hack the SEP and build complicated, low-
| level-interacting software like futurestore in order to
| perform a semi-successful downgrade/upgrade.
| Karunamon wrote:
| Technically, no, but you'll be repetitively bothered by
| modal popups until you do.
| eganist wrote:
| > that if someone modifies their own medical device and
| gets hurt because of it that they legally only hurt
| themselves because they had the right to make that choice.
|
| Well, while this applies to medical devices, worth noting
| this doesn't apply to cars, for which safety inspections
| have existed in many states for quite a while.
| joshspankit wrote:
| I'd argue that it does apply to cars as safety
| inspections don't apply when you keep a vehicle within
| the bounds of private property.
| noizejoy wrote:
| Would that be similar to having an iPhone never connected
| to the Internet?
| kube-system wrote:
| While Apple has made that argument, their devices are not
| primarily intended to support life, and the vast majority
| of failures due to bad repairs don't kill people.
|
| And often with medical devices, they may often be
| supporting the life of someone other than the original
| purchaser and sole maintainer.
| avs733 wrote:
| These are also two classes of consumer facing product that are
| most regulated and likely to contain electronics
|
| (I'm excluding cribs...because my partner laughed at me when I
| suggested building our crib and told me that was fine as long
| as I followed all the rules)
| MuffinFlavored wrote:
| Did you know that if you buy a 2021 BMW M5 and paid $120k for it
| in cash (no financing), then let the warranty expire (or
| hypothetically signed an opt-in waiver forgoing your powertrain
| warranty), you still can't flash your own calibration map to
| increase power into the engine control units?
|
| I'm sure there's a ton of good reasons why liability wise. Just
| seems crazy to me.
|
| I guess it's the same when you buy a $1k iPhone and can't run
| your own unsigned software.
| Daishiman wrote:
| That sounds... totally reasonable?
|
| A badly flashed ECU can trivially wreck your engine. It can
| make it wear out faster. It can increase emissions.
|
| I have no objection with voiding warranty repairs if you
| reflash an ECU. The important thing is that you should still be
| able to do it, and still be able to fix the car yourself and
| get replacement parts.
| mikepurvis wrote:
| Surely some of that kind of thing would come down to regulatory
| compliance like emissions? It would be no good if right beside
| the BMW dealer was a shack with a dude who "unlocks" your new
| car's performance by turning it into a soot-spewing disaster
| (yes I know about coal rolling, but at least right now that's
| mostly done for jackass reasons not performance reasons).
|
| Anyway, it's basically the same thing that's at stake with
| router radio firmware and RF compliance-- yes, you own the
| device, but the device's hardware has inherent capabilities
| that if fully unlocked, you would really need additional
| permits/licensing/oversight to operate in a way that doesn't
| interfere with other people's devices and wellbeing. Having
| your device locked down in this regard is a compromise that
| lets you have it and use it within those parameters while not
| needing to become a domain expert.
| whyIsItOk wrote:
| Why do people buy from these companies at all?
|
| You know they are doing anti consumer practices, it's not like
| there is a Monopoly.
|
| The only people I feel sympathetic for are iOS programmers who
| are forced into Apples Walled Prison. The rest of the population
| have created this problem.
| abeppu wrote:
| I think right to repair bills could be important, but I think
| they should also cover cases where the physical device is fine,
| but the company is no longer running a service, or sending
| security updates. In these cases, "repair" should include the
| ability to run different firmware etc.
| asah wrote:
| ... different SaaS service, including any security keys?
| ChicagoBoy11 wrote:
| What would be the best argument against this sort of legislation?
| andrei_says_ wrote:
| Focus groups show privacy and safety and both arguments are
| gleefully weaponized by the lobbyists.
| pembrook wrote:
| The "safety!" argument against RTR is disingenuous. Just as
| the "landfills!" argument in favor of RTR is also
| disingenuous.
|
| Nobody on either side actually believes those things
| (regardless of how passionately they claim to). They are both
| fallacious appeals to get disinterested people emotionally
| wrapped up in the topic.
|
| RE: safety, people getting hurt trying to repair stuff
| happens already and will still happen post-regulation. Right
| to repair will not result in more injuries.
|
| RE: landfills, most people don't throw stuff away because it
| breaks. They throw things away because newer models are more
| powerful, faster, smaller, more efficient, or aesthetically
| "cool." Right to repair will not result in less landfills.
| [deleted]
| kats wrote:
| 1. This law is extremely broad and covers any "digital
| electronic equipment". Since everything has a computer in it
| nowadays, it's hard for a person to even understand what
| industries this covers.
|
| This is unnecessarily much broader than the original intent.
| Right to repair was mostly pushed for by computer repair shops,
| who mostly work with consumer electronics. The New York
| lawmakers acknowledged there was some problem with this, that's
| why they excluded everything medical or automotive. But every
| other industry is still effected and it will have unintended
| consequences. They excluded only cars and medical devices, but
| did they still intend for this to apply to boats, planes,
| construction equipment, missiles, building access management,
| even pipelines?
|
| The Colonial Pipeline must have some "digital electronic
| equipment" that controls it. How likely is it that if all the
| maintenance manuals for that stuff are released, people will
| find some security-by-obscurity there? Computer repair shops
| are not going to repair oil and gas pipelines, so is there any
| reason these manuals need to be made publically available?
|
| 2. Everything this law requires is going to be made public, it
| won't just be for independent repair shops, and that may not be
| in the public interest. The law acknowledges that for security-
| related information, there may be a reason not to make it
| publically available. It says that "such documentation, tools,
| and parts may be made available through appropriate secure
| release systems." But they can't actually enforce that. The law
| says that manufacturers have to provide these maintenance
| manuals for free to any "independent repair provider", which
| could be a 1-person company, and the right to repair folks
| already stated they want to dump everything online. So all this
| confidental information will get leaked immediately and there's
| nothing the manufacturers will be able to do about it.
|
| 3. Security. For electronics, security-by-obscurity is all over
| the place, you can find it everywhere. Devices always need some
| privileged mode for things like testing, administration, or
| maintenance, and it's hard to do that securely on processors
| that are as cheap as possible for business reasons.
|
| Consider e.g. building access control, like the keypads on
| apartment buildings. These have a need for someone to be able
| to unlock the door in unusual situations, e.g. for maintenance,
| building administration, or for firefighting. Instead of a TLS
| stack, they probably have some obscurity-by-security keycode,
| like pressing #12345 to enable the maintenance mode. This would
| be documented in a maintenance manual and not provided to most
| end users. When the right to repair folks dump this manual on
| the internet, it's going to help criminals a lot more than
| repair shops. Repairs to apartment keypads are rare, but thefts
| from apartment buildings are very common.
|
| This same thing will happen with a million other devices that
| no one has thought about yet. If the manufacturer created some
| features that the user is not supposed to access, there's
| probably a reason for that. But all this stuff will be recorded
| in maintenance manuals, and making it public won't really
| benefit users as much as it will harm security.
| [deleted]
| pembrook wrote:
| You won't hear any here. HN, while libertarian-leaning on many
| issues, is overwhelmingly in favor of government regulation on
| this topic.
|
| I'll be downvoted, but here's a few real potential downsides
| (which exist anytime a small group of people with good
| intentions THINK they understand a complex issue enough to fix
| it). All regulation has unintended consequences:
|
| _Ineffective at stopping E-waste_ - The main reason people
| throw electronics away is not because they break, but because
| they become obsolete. In electronics, the next generation of
| products is almost always faster, smaller, and more energy
| efficient. Hence why we have landfills full of old beige
| computer towers that are fully functional and user-repairable,
| yet nobody wants.
|
| _Dampened innovation_ - When you tell companies they have to
| build things a certain way, you remove the option for something
| better to evolve. Once you pass a law, it 's almost impossible
| to get it removed, and who knows what the future will bring
| (eg. biodegradable electronics, miniaturization on a
| microscopic scale, etc)
|
| _Increased costs for consumers_ - baring the extra engineering
| /documentation costs (which aren't trivial), any requirements
| to supply spare parts for X years would be insanely expensive.
| Forcing companies to create small quantity B2C supply chains
| and retail channels for consumers to purchase individual parts
| on obsolete models would be an absolute nightmare.
|
| _Disincentivized R &D_ - if you're forced to create manuals
| that tell your competitors how to clone your products and also
| let them easily buy all your parts, why invest in creating
| something unique? You'll just be cloned by an army of chinese
| competitors even faster. Just sell commodity crap hardware and
| focus on branding.
|
| _Entrenching incumbents_ - incumbent big companies may simply
| use this regulation as an opportunity to entrench their
| position in the marketplace. If they can make it harder for
| upstarts to get off the ground, that 's good for them! Anytime
| a company is coming out in favor of legislation and
| "restrictions" on their business, beware.
| Dracophoenix wrote:
| This is an issue I myself have had to consider. Personally
| I'm no fan of government interference in this matter even if
| I'm not a big fan of Apple's practices as a whole. While I'm
| on board with the ideas behind R2R, I can't in anyway support
| an imposition of producing spare parts or manuals by
| legislative writ.
|
| In the long run, it would probably be ineffective as well.
| Most of the big companies would probably ignore the law
| and/or sue the state. I'm sure there'll be first amendment
| issues citing compelled speech with regards to being forced
| to produce manuals.
| Karunamon wrote:
| This is a bad post.
|
| 1. It complains about downvotes, which is one of many reasons
| your post is grey.
|
| 2. _The main reason people throw electronics away is not
| because they break, but because they become obsolete_ : Big
| [citation needed] on shorter time scales. For longer time
| scales it's intuitively true but irrelevant. With Moore's law
| being toast, most hardware upgrades are extremely
| incremental. I don't get any more battery life on my iPhone
| XS Max than I do on the 6+ it replaced, it's not any more
| responsive, etc. Beige boxes haven't been a thing for
| decades. But, people holding onto their devices longer would
| absolutely result in less ewaste.
|
| 3. _When you tell companies they have to build things a
| certain way, you remove the option for something better to
| evolve_ : That depends entirely on the nature of the
| requirements. Nobody's talking about the government dictating
| the whole BOM. No innovation is being stifled by requiring,
| say, user-replaceable batteries, unless we're talking about
| innovative ways to pad the company's bottom line. Let's not
| lose sight of the fact that repair-hostile design absolutely
| benefits the company and _only_ the company at the end of the
| day.
|
| 4. _baring the extra engineering /documentation costs:_ which
| are already done internally, so those costs are irrelevant.
| Every company that does repairs has documented repair
| procedures for their own people already. They can put PDFs on
| a freaking website. No idea what you mean by "extra
| engineering costs".
|
| 5. _forcing companies to create small quantity B2C supply
| chains and retail channels for consumers to purchase
| individual parts on obsolete models would be an absolute
| nightmare_ : That's somewhat fair, but there's no reason it
| needs to be any more of a retail channel than their
| ship/replace stuff already is. The infra is already in place,
| they're just shipping out parts instead of full devices. I
| think the word "obsolete" is doing a lot of heavy lifting
| here.. a 2 years old phone is only "obsolete" by manufacturer
| fiat, because they can make more money by marketing tiny,
| incremental upgrades and simply refusing to support the
| still-useful device.
|
| 6. _You 'll just be cloned by an army of chinese competitors
| even faster:_ Not fast enough for this to be an actual
| concern. Shitty chinese clones happen with a quickness even
| today, yet for some reason people still spend billions on
| name brand devices. I do not foresee this meaningfully
| changing. Trademark/import law is still a thing, after all.
|
| 7. _incumbent big companies may simply use this regulation as
| an opportunity to entrench their position in the marketplace_
| : This is a weak meta-situational argument used by all big
| businesses against any and all business regulations. I do not
| see why this case is special.
| pembrook wrote:
| > _With Moore 's law being toast, most hardware upgrades
| are extremely incremental._
|
| This is news to me. Not sure if you've heard, 1nm has
| already been achieved in processors, and Apple has been
| keeping the progress curve alive with SOC architecture:
| https://siliconangle.com/2021/04/10/new-era-innovation-
| moore...
|
| > _No innovation is being stifled by requiring, say, user-
| replaceable batteries_
|
| This is exactly my point. You have good intentions and are
| trying to solve the problem.
|
| But by doing so you've just made a dangerous authoritarian
| decision for the future of all computing. Who knows what
| form batteries will take in the future, especially as power
| needs are reduced. Look at how much less power the M1 SOC
| takes vs. Intel chips and multiply that by 10. Now think of
| all the new form factors that would be enabled by this, and
| where your law might be a hinderance in 20+ years (yet
| impossible politically to repeal).
|
| New tech is fragile. All it takes is one guy in legal to
| say "too risky, violates X law" and said experimental
| product is set back a decade or two.
|
| > _Shitty chinese clones happen with a quickness even
| today, yet for some reason people still spend billions on
| name brand devices. I do not foresee this meaningfully
| changing._
|
| I don't have the same crystal ball to predict the future, I
| guess. How can you be so sure? Because America is the best
| at everything and will always be the best? History is
| filled with predictions of a future that never came to be.
|
| Overall, I'm sympathetic to the cause, but I think the RTR
| movement is a little too dogmatic and authoritarian for my
| tastes. If the market wanted the same things as RTR,
| companies would already be creating their products this way
| and minting profits. The market isn't perfectly efficient,
| but it mostly is.
|
| ...and if Apple is wrong, and people actually do care about
| user-replaceable batteries, you should run out and start a
| RTR-friendly hardware company tomorrow and win the market!
| ChicagoBoy11 wrote:
| Whatever folks' objections to these reasons may be, this does
| seem like a great accounting of logical and well-reasoned
| objections to this legislation, which is what I was looking
| for. Sounds to me like it'd be important to properly consider
| this issue to at least do some mental gymnastics as to what
| the possible objections could be.
|
| Sorry to see that you were, indeed, downvoted.
| specialp wrote:
| From someone living in NY and having watched bills like this...
| Last time this came up it silently died without a vote. This vote
| is probably symbolic and it will languish in the Assembly
| forever. It is nice they voted for this overwhelmingly but it has
| not been "passed" as a law. It just passed step 1/3
| xroche wrote:
| If I loosely quote Louis Rossmann, one of the issue of right to
| repair is that more and more companies (Apple leading the trend)
| are using slightly modified chips from manufacturers, and them
| make then sign contracts that prevent any part selling to anyone.
|
| So technically even you can replace those chips, you can't buy
| them.
|
| And next Apple if putting serial numbers to prevent that even if
| you get the part, you will have a non-functional device.
|
| This bill does not appear to address that.
|
| Besides, the "information they need to repair" is also where the
| devil will be. Companies like Apple provide instructions on how
| to unscrew the laptop cover with a screwdriver (literally), but
| won't provide any data sheets.
| ksec wrote:
| Apple had to cut the time to buy AppleCare+ in China down to 7
| days simply due to the fact people were swapping parts in
| iPhone and return for exchanges.
|
| And I am not entirely sure if it is a good idea Apple sell
| these parts for repairing. Which Apple will definitely do so
| with their hardware margin. i.e They will sell you the Display
| Screen with Glass for $300+. At this point you might as well go
| to Apple and fix it.
|
| I had always wish the Services Strategy of Apple was to raise
| the price of iPhone and Mac by $100, move those to Services
| Revenue and included AppleCare+ by default. Also lowering any
| replacement and fixing price rather than try and gouge their
| customer at their Genius Bar. Which is increasingly a thing
| since 2015.
|
| Getting third party fixing also have risk when your Data aren't
| fully backed up. Which is something likes to push for their
| iCloud Services.
| squarefoot wrote:
| > So technically even you can replace those chips, you can't
| buy them.
|
| They don't even need to resort to this. If the chip requires
| programming, they keep the chip protected from read and the
| code locked and bingo: you can buy an identical one but it
| won't work without the original code. Pretty much any digital
| product in existence works like that today. One could have the
| entire BOM of an iPhone available, but without their iron level
| firmware, all programmable chips would just sit there doing
| nothing thus making the device unusable.
| nrp wrote:
| That is largely Apple-specific, as most other OEMs use off the
| shelf chips. Even in that case though, the distribution doesn't
| exist for many components to be available to individuals or
| repair shops, since the component makers only want to deal with
| their couple dozen big customers directly.
| nipponese wrote:
| On that note, Rossmann is a curious character. He openly and
| variously despises Apple's hardware choices and policies, yet
| to my memory, that's his shop works on. Are the economics of
| repairing Apple products that strong or is the man is a true
| masochist?
| snuxoll wrote:
| He runs a shop that supports many employees and himself,
| so, yes, the economics obviously work in his favor. One
| doesn't need to like the choices of a company to offer to
| service their products.
| InvertedRhodium wrote:
| And given that each repair could, in theory, eat into the
| profit margins that Apple enjoys (either via 1st patty
| repairs or through a customer not buying a replacement
| device) it would make logical sense to do so if he
| dislikes Apple that much
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| Familiarity breeds contempt.
|
| If you work with the greatest stuff in the world all day
| every day you'll be able to find a million reasons it
| sucks.
| noizejoy wrote:
| "First world problems" is also a related concept. Our
| priorities and judgements are very much borne from the
| larger context of our individual and group experiences.
|
| Even the very definition of "greatest stuff in the world"
| is highly dependent on one's particular circumstance and
| priorities.
| xroche wrote:
| If my memory is correct, he explained that this was where
| most of the market was (especially on the neighborhood of
| NYC he lives in), and it was easier to fix a bunch of Apple
| models, rather than thousands of different Android
| brands/models.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| He stopped working on iPhones because of the BS.
| andrei_says_ wrote:
| Watch some of his videos. He has a lot of insight about the
| subpar quality of Apple devices, about the outrageous lies
| of Apple Genius Bar quoting people thousands of dollars for
| repairs that take him 5-10 minutes, for apple's efforts to
| make the devices non serviceable, withholding schematics,
| controlling access to replacement parts etc.
|
| Here's a televised CBS report.
|
| https://youtu.be/o2_SZ4tfLns
|
| He is extremely good at repair while despising the
| company's despicable practices - and warns people about
| them.
| dntrkv wrote:
| I'm not sure that's the best example.
|
| In my mind, it makes sense that Apple won't repair a
| device that has signs of water damage without replacing
| all potentially affected parts (the bit about humidity is
| a discussion all on its own). Water damage can surface in
| a myriad of ways, and the last thing they want to do is
| charge a customer for a fix, only for them to come back
| demanding a refund because their device is broken again.
|
| Rossmann has a small enough operation that he can handle
| this on a case by case basis. Apple operates at scale, so
| the fact that they have blanket policies like this makes
| sense.
|
| Of course the debate changes when Apple makes it so that
| you can only use them for repairs.
| andrei_says_ wrote:
| An additional perspective is that Rossman's 5-min free
| repair cost Apple $1000+ in revenue.
|
| Apple can totally scale repair but it won't be as cheap
| and profitable.
|
| So what they scale instead is lying to their customers.
|
| The Genius Bar employee presented a lie as a certain
| fact. They didn't say that there's more to be found out,
| that humidity indicators are sometimes unreliable etc.
|
| They went with the highest grossing lie.
|
| That's a _policy_.
|
| Having such policies calls for legislation protecting the
| customer and giving independent repair _some_ chance.
| Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote:
| Amend the bill to include all consumer electronics
| manufacturers must provide replacement parts for all their new
| products for twenty years. The churn of slightly different
| pieces in next years models should fall off a cliff when
| warehouses need to get built to hold everything.
|
| Or something
| reflectiv wrote:
| 20 years is a bit much IMO...5-10 tho, that sounds at least
| reasonable.
| Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote:
| I'm open to considering the nuance here.
|
| For a washing machine or refrigerator, I'd say twenty years
| is the minimum. For a phone or computer? I'd say at the
| very least five, but preferably ten years from the last
| sale of a new, used, or refurbished device sold by them or
| their authorized resellers. Require security updates for at
| least twice as long, or when the manufacturer can prove all
| devices are out of use.
| teh_klev wrote:
| I disagree, five to ten years is far too short.
|
| I have a couple of audio devices that are ~14 years old and
| working perfectly fine. If either of them broke then I'd
| want to repair them (unless of course the fault was
| fabulously catastrophic). Once upon a time even affordably
| priced equipment lasted way more than 5-10 years. Maybe
| it's a generational thing, due to my being on the wrong
| side of 50 :), but stuff used to be built to last for
| affordable money. Hell I'm still wearing the Seiko
| mechanical auto-wind watch I was given for my birthday in
| 1983, and it still (mostly) tells the right time and day.
|
| Twenty years should be a minimum.
| mikepurvis wrote:
| I think past a certain point it's reasonable to expect
| that your repair operation may also involve some
| scrounging for the parts-- for example, the classic
| frankenstein procedure where a laptop with a dead
| motherboard is married to another of the same model where
| the screen is cracked. I think for most electronics, past
| 5-10 years is pretty reasonable for this kind of thing. I
| mean, the GameCube came out in 2001-2002, and many
| circles now consider that to be a vintage/retro machine
| at this point. Would we really expect Nintendo to still
| be supplying repair shops with the full BOM of whatever's
| in there?
|
| Anyway, the real trick with this of course is forbidding
| the serial number based lockouts.
| teh_klev wrote:
| > the real trick with this of course is forbidding the
| serial number based lockouts.
|
| Yeah, that is just downright spiteful scumbaggery.
| mikepurvis wrote:
| I mean, they position it the same way-- "we're
| _protecting customers_ from those unscrupulous overseas
| ebay vendors who will sell them a half-capacity battery
| that they install and then forget about, later blaming
| the device and OEM for poor performance. "
|
| But obviously that's super suspect when the end result is
| still granting themselves a razors-and-blades monopoly
| over key replacement parts.
| hughrr wrote:
| I worked in the defence industry for a few years where
| they did this. I also have equipment that is nearly 50
| years old in service now (electronic test gear).
|
| BUT the cost was astronomical as were the storage
| requirements for parts and the cost of the replacement
| parts. The oscilloscope I have (tek 7904) was released in
| 1972 and would cost about $100k now with the plugins I
| have in it. And that's because it was designed for
| repair. Versus a modern unit which costs around $5k,
| lasts 5 years and is disposable. Yeah that's not gonna
| wash. Also it actually requires some quite extreme skills
| looking after 40+ year old kit.
|
| What you end up with is a $7000 iPhone and a repair
| industry where min charge is $500 for some obscure part
| because the universe has moved on.
|
| Recycling and reuse is better and that's where we're
| heading. Even cars are going in that direction.
| birdyrooster wrote:
| So if I buy a keysight scope that thing will die quickly?
| hughrr wrote:
| Depends on which phase of the moon it is. Best to look at
| the total cost of ownership over the warranty period and
| see if you're happy with the monthly total. Anything
| outside that is a bonus! Same applies to Apple.
|
| Keysight's semi legendary reputation for reliability
| comes from the second hand market which has had all the
| lemons removed from the table. Their production
| reputation is "average" and their in warranty fees
| "surprising" (I'm still getting over having to pay for a
| new OLED display for a DMM that was 2 years old)
|
| Better buy Chinese these days and plan to throw it away.
| noizejoy wrote:
| And that disconnect between economics and what's
| environmentally manageable is at the very heart of a lot
| of modern problems.
|
| I often wonder, if there will ever be a way to make that
| widening chasm disappear, other than going back to living
| in caves ...
| mikepurvis wrote:
| The manufacture, storage, and ultimate disposal of all
| those spare parts also has an environmental cost, unless
| you assume that the measures end up driving some industry
| wide shifts, such as toward many more common parts, on-
| demand manufacture of certain elements, etc. It's a lot
| easier to warehouse a bunch of STL files than the actual
| bits, and maybe if your dishwasher's controller unit is
| just a 3v3 Linux computer with a standard GPIO connector,
| then a "spare part" in ten years is a totally different
| unit that happens to plug in and run the same interpreted
| software, and everything on the other end of that
| connector is just standard discrete parts like drivers,
| signal conditioning, etc, that can be replaced a la
| carte.
|
| In any case, there certainly have been _some_ proposals
| for how to bring some of these costs into the economic
| picture, most obviously pricing carbon and charging
| upfront disposal taxes for things like automobile tires.
| More aggressive measures might specifically punish the
| extraction of anything non-renewable-- John Michael Greer
| talks a bunch about this [1] in a framework where the
| "primary economy" is in fact the natural processes like
| rain, pollination by insects, fertilization by animal
| waste, etc. Anything humans do on top of that which
| disrupts it is "secondary economy" and should have to pay
| the appropriate compensations for stewardship.
|
| It sounds reasonable, but obviously it's a political
| nonstarter in any place in the world (like Canada) whose
| economy is mostly still built on conventional primary
| industries like oil, logging, fishing, mining.
|
| [1]: https://newsociety.com/books/w/the-wealth-of-nature
| Spivak wrote:
| As long as it's 5-10 years after the date the company
| _last_ sold the device as new.
| augstein wrote:
| We should probably first do realistic estimates on how much
| that would increase prices for those products.
|
| 20 years is a long time and I wonder how much use a 20 year
| old iPhone for example even has.
| afiori wrote:
| What is needed is much less, a simple requirement not to stop
| other from providing the part is enough.
|
| In the vast majority of cases it is not apple the one
| producing the chips so it would not really make sense to buy
| it from apple.
|
| There is even the more severe case where the manifacturer
| disappeared and no factory with similar technology exists.
| How is Apple or whatever company supposed to produce that
| chip?
|
| The essential of right of repair is "do not make second hand
| markets and resellers illegal".
| williesleg wrote:
| That's where it ends. Cuomo is an asshole.
| tiffanyh wrote:
| Devils advocate:
|
| Why is hardware treated different than software?
|
| If I own a perpetual license for some type of software, should I
| be entitled to "repair" the software I own.
|
| (Note: I'm not including SaaS in this since your don't own that)
| ExtraE wrote:
| I'm not sure I disagree, but e-waste maybe?
| brixon wrote:
| You have to first fight the battle that you do not own the
| software, but that you only have a license to use the software.
| If you win that, then you can fight for repair.
| Dracophoenix wrote:
| In the United States yes, but in Europe there is no such
| distinction.
| ourmandave wrote:
| _Normally the next step would be a vote on an identical bill in
| the state's Assembly.
|
| But Thursday is the last day of session for the NY legislature,
| and the bill has not yet escaped committee, making a vote by the
| full Assembly unlikely.
|
| The battle for fair repair in New York will continue into next
| year's session, with a strong record of success._
|
| So eventually... maybe.
| sschueller wrote:
| We aren't even at the half way point of the year and this is
| already the end of the years session? In a large state like NY?
| How does anything get done? This isn't some small town in the
| middle of nowhere.
| showerst wrote:
| The majority of US states only meet a few months a year. Many
| have two year sessions that start in odd-years, so things
| that don't get completed in 2021 can get picked up again
| where they left off in 2022.
|
| You'd be surprised both how much they're expected to get done
| in a few months, and also how little some state legislatures
| actually pass. State and Federal agencies serve a huge role
| in the US, partially for this reason.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _We aren 't even at the half way point of the year and this
| is already the end of the years session?_
|
| We have a part-time legislature. The other half of the year
| lets our politicians earn a living outside politics (as well
| as politick--it's an election year.)
|
| Our Governor is powerful. If an emergency arises, I believe
| the Assembly and Senate can be called back into session. But
| that's rarely required.
| milesvp wrote:
| There's actually a problem here in washington state, and I'd
| guess in other states as well, that most of the legislators
| are real estate agents. They're one of the few common
| professions that can afford to take off months at a time and
| still make significant income the rest of the year.
| birdman3131 wrote:
| Texas is every 2 years from what I understand.
| xroche wrote:
| Louis Rossmann is more skeptical:
|
| Right to Repair bill PASSES in NY state senate! What now?
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FX6BVQe6Tq4
|
| TL;DR: Low probability than anything will happen before next
| year
| squarefoot wrote:
| Can anyone comment on this please? (from the nysenate.gov link in
| the article)
|
| "This bill require original equipment manufacturers (OEM) to make
| diag- nostic and repair information for digital electronic parts
| and equipment available to independent repair providers and
| consumers _if such parts and repair information are also
| available to OEM authorized repair providers._ "
|
| This seems to imply that if something is being sold as non
| repairable, it will continue to be, since there would be no
| authorized repair providers.
| cronix wrote:
| Your take sounds right. Like if Apple replaces phone screens at
| an Apple facility, they must also make the screens (and
| supporting equipment) available to other parties. If they don't
| replace screens, then they don't have to make them available.
| squarefoot wrote:
| Exactly. Which would make sense in case of spare parts, "we
| don't make spare parts for us, so we can't distribute them
| for others", but that would apply also to firmware and
| technical information, which they have and doesn't require
| distribution in physical form.
|
| I'm afraid that for some time we'll continue to see old
| phones discarded in landfills because there will be no
| technical information available allowing developers to port
| open operating systems, drivers and apps to them.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-06-11 23:01 UTC)