[HN Gopher] Calif. passes strongest right-to-repair bill yet, re...
___________________________________________________________________
Calif. passes strongest right-to-repair bill yet, requiring 7 years
of parts
Author : thunderbong
Score : 372 points
Date : 2023-09-14 10:42 UTC (12 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (arstechnica.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (arstechnica.com)
| some_random wrote:
| And as usual it has huge carve outs for whatever industries were
| able to apply enough money and or votes
| ZoomerCretin wrote:
| https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...
|
| > 42488.2. (a) Notwithstanding any other law, every manufacturer
| of an electronic or appliance product with a wholesale price to
| the retailer, or to others outside of direct retail sale
|
| This only affects manufacturers who sell wholesale. Is this
| intended as a proxy for a manufacturer's ability to comply with
| this law? It seems that any large manufacturer who wishes to not
| comply simply has to stop using wholesale prices, though I'm not
| sure how feasible that is.
| HeyLaughingBoy wrote:
| I think the rationale behind this statement is that it doesn't
| apply to small specialty manufacturers. e.g., small
| manufacturers that sell direct to their customer are exempt.
|
| I build custom electronics (not consumer items), mostly with
| very small unit volumes. e.g., I just shipped 10 units of a
| device that monitors a controller and sends a message to an
| Android app when it turns on or off. The entire lifespan of
| this product will probably be under 100 units. Making someone
| like me have to comply with laws like this would probably be
| enough to rethink the whole thing.
| j16sdiz wrote:
| I hope it is equally enforced on imported gadgets listed on
| AliExpress or Amazon.
| donatj wrote:
| Are there lower limits on company size?
|
| My friend and I are working on a sort of synthesizer and we have
| trouble enough sourcing parts for our prototypes let alone having
| a stock of everything for 7 years!
|
| Our designs are on GitHub and are no secret, we encourage people
| to build their own. There's no way we could provide parts for
| that long. The profit on each device after our labor is
| negligible.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| Set up an entity, ideally non-Californian, and ignore the law.
| Obviously not legal advice. But if you're still chugging along
| in a few years, you can afford to back comply. If you aren't,
| there is nothing for a customer to sue.
| scarface_74 wrote:
| So now phone makers have to supply parts for seven years. But
| most Android makers don't supply OS upgrades for more than 3 if
| at all.
|
| Win?
| ugh123 wrote:
| Would love to see someone in the industry recognize this
| discrepancy and say "we proudly say we match our OS upgrades
| with the strongest right-to-repair laws in the country". Google
| Pixel?
|
| Edit:
|
| Well hey, at least Google is now doing 10 years of Chromebook
| updates (likely demanded by schools)
|
| https://blog.google/outreach-initiatives/education/automatic...
| djha-skin wrote:
| California: we're rich and powerful and without us you companies
| and people couldn't make money, so let's use this power to force
| people to do what we want! Hey, where did everyone go?
| Spivak wrote:
| This is an odd take for something that is decidedly pro
| consumer. Like what's the downside to having businesses have to
| plan for their product having to last less than a decade in the
| market?
| BurningFrog wrote:
| Compliance costs get passed to the consumer, one way or
| another.
|
| Higher prices or products not being sold in CA anymore are
| the most obvious ones.
| a-user-you-like wrote:
| Yes, there are already a number of products that
| Californians just don't have access to, for their
| "protection". I imagine this bill will further reduce the
| quality of life for Californians.
| Spivak wrote:
| This isn't about protection any more than laws against
| littering are. It's basically a boycott that actually
| works because it goes through our established system for
| collective action.
| a-user-you-like wrote:
| Litter laws make sense and don't limit purchase options.
| These laws hurt the poorest so the upper echelon can feel
| good.
| NegativeK wrote:
| So do ewaste costs.
| MrBuddyCasino wrote:
| Do you have domain expertise in hardware design and supply
| chains to judge this issue competently, carefully weighing
| the pros and cons, or did you consult your gut?
| Spivak wrote:
| No because that's not even a consideration. The bar to
| passing a law like this isn't some greater good market
| analysis, it's whether it's it literally possible to do
| because the mandate is for companies to, maybe drastically,
| change their behavior to stop making trash.
|
| Like what even is this, do you like the rampant corporatism
| where laws can only be passed if it doesn't affect your
| profits too much uwu? Won't you of those poor corporations
| flooding the market with garbage?
| j16sdiz wrote:
| I can't imagine how this would be enforced on gadget sold
| on AliExpress and mailed from China.
|
| Currently, lots of gadget violating local safety law are
| imported this way.
|
| This would unequally harm local businesses
| Spivak wrote:
| That's always how imports work, you can buy basically
| anything that's illegal to be sold but not illegal to use
| in your area by importing it from somewhere else. It's
| where people are getting flavored tobacco.
|
| The logical conclusion that "for the protection of local
| business we have to allow everything" is a bit absurd.
| You can still buy it but you can't buy it here is a
| pretty normal compromise, would you rather it be enforced
| and you be charged with possession of a Huawei?
| dddrh wrote:
| My reaction to understand this: if the cost of manufacturing
| something is 7x in California compared to the rest of the USA
| then it's easier to just not sell it in California.
|
| But having not read anything besides HN comments yet this I
| don't expect this to be the reality of the bill, only the
| reaction to the headlines.
| rascul wrote:
| Not sure if it's still the case but there was a time when I
| would browse aftermarket performance car parts and a number
| of them could not be sold in California.
|
| I suspect there will be some products that won't be
| available in California in the future. But there will be
| many companies that adapt and stay in the California
| market.
| kyrra wrote:
| "There are no solutions. There are only trade-offs."
|
| Why make the decision for the consumer. This is forcing a
| choice on them by the state, that is going to have trade-
| offs, most likely increasing the price of the initial product
| significantly.
|
| And as others have called out, no name brands that ship from
| overseas are not going to follow this and there is likely no
| enforcement mechanism to make them do that. So all this will
| hurt are large legitimate companies. It would likely drive
| many large companies out of various product lines.
| p_j_w wrote:
| >Why make the decision for the consumer.
|
| How do I go about making the choice to buy a repairable
| cell phone?
| Spivak wrote:
| > Why make the decision for the consumer
|
| Because that's not really what's happening, consumers are
| product takers and this law also affects them. It's as much
| a law about not buying trash as it is not selling it.
|
| The number of product segments where none of the firms in
| the market offer long term support and parts, especially in
| consumer electronics is embarrassing. I have an easier time
| finding parts for products makes 40 years ago than 5 years
| ago.
|
| > It would likely drive many large companies out of various
| product lines.
|
| Fantastic! Literally overjoyed to hear it. The louder
| people complain the more I believe this law will actually
| change things and do some positive good.
| InSteady wrote:
| Consumers already had little to no choice in the matter
| where it counted. California is making the decision _for
| the producer_ that they must offer the choice to consumers
| to repair a product that brakes in a semi-reasonable
| timeframe (should definitely be longer for some product
| categories, arguably less for others).
|
| American brands often already enjoy significant advantages
| in reputation (not to mention actual quality), in part due
| to regulations and business norms in the states. This only
| strengthens that.
|
| Moderately more expensive products that can be expected to
| be operable for substantially longer is a big win for the
| overwhelming majority of society, including future
| generations (in more ways than one). It remains to be seen
| if that is the actual result of legislation like this, but
| it is certainly a noble goal for society and worth
| attempting.
| donatj wrote:
| Consumers had all the choice. They literally kept buying
| unrepairable devices, so the market naturally shifted
| away.
|
| 99% of users, even after this bill, will never repair
| anything ever. It's forcing niche desires onto everyone.
|
| It's a law that forces producers hand to do something the
| vast majority of consumers don't actually want.
|
| Almost everyone will continue to buy a new phone when
| theirs breaks. No one wants to use a year old phone. It's
| already outdated. That's what makes it anti-consumer -
| being directly out of line with what consumers actually
| want.
| Qwertious wrote:
| >No one wants to use a year old phone. It's already
| outdated
|
| Speak for yourself, moneybags.
| donatj wrote:
| Everyone wants the latest version even if they can't
| afford to upgrade. No one buys the latest phone and is
| wishing "man, I wish I had bought last year's iPhone"
| lacksconfidence wrote:
| You live in a different world where noone wants to use a
| year old phone. I certainly live in a different, and
| perhaps non-standard, world as well. At my game night
| last night there wasn't a single phone newer than 5
| years.
| donatj wrote:
| And not a single person there had any desire for a newer
| phone?
| lacksconfidence wrote:
| Well they all work in tech and make well over 6 figures,
| they could buy one if they wanted. There may be some
| desire, but it's balanced by other factors.
| a-user-you-like wrote:
| > Moderately more expensive
|
| This bill hurts the poorest people by making certain
| products even more inaccessible to them. Before, they
| could at least have a choice between something they could
| afford and something repairable. Not anymore, that choice
| has been taken away from them.
| Spivak wrote:
| I'll believe this argument when we start giving a shit
| about the poor when it comes to the literal basic
| necessities like food and housing.
|
| And plus, this is such shortsighted thinking when the
| whole point of right to repair is to reduce the total
| cost of ownership and longevity of electronics by making
| them not disposable.
|
| This reasoning also applies to literally every regulation
| in every field and product segment. We can apparently
| never set the bar higher than the ground.
| a-user-you-like wrote:
| > I'll believe this argument when we start giving a shit
| about the poor when it comes to the literal basic
| necessities like food and housing.
|
| You're right, we should greatly reduce the regulations
| around housing in CA to allow for faster development so
| the poor can have newer, cheaper homes.
|
| > And plus, this is such shortsighted thinking
|
| No. The issue is the use of force. If you want a
| repairable option, pay more and get one. You're forcing
| the poor to pay more for what you willingly chose to, and
| that's bad. Don't tread on the poor, keep their options
| open.
| pcdoodle wrote:
| Something I can chime in on. We've been doing Mac/PC/iPhone @ our
| B&M repair shop since 2009. We've delayed a few hundred thousand
| pounds of e-waste from hitting the dump before it's truly EOL
| (doesn't sound like much but we're also retaining the customers
| familiar computing environment which is a huge value add).
|
| We've also enabled our customers to skip quite a few generations
| of upgrades due to extended operation of their existing hardware.
|
| To keep things simple: the parts used to achieve this were from
| computer recyclers across the US, not even once have we used
| parts from a manufacturer. There are quite a few reasons for this
| besides maintaining our profitability. We love high quality OEM
| parts.
|
| I have a feeling this will become a profit center for
| manufacturers and be priced just high enough that there's no room
| to justify maintaining hardware when repair labor costs are added
| to the equation.
|
| My opinion is the "Garbage by Design" lockouts that happen due to
| hardware/software/firmware locks, are going to be the main
| culprits preventing companies like mine from performing the same
| extended use of these tools and thus causing more "upgrades" and
| trashing cycles.
|
| I think the most important thing is that parts remain swappable
| without manufacturer intervention and red tape. Louis Rossmann
| and Hugh Jefferys also make great videos about these issues.
|
| -Typed on my 2011 17" Macbook Pro (16GB/1TB) while pulling 20W
| from the wall.
| twoodfin wrote:
| The interesting dog-that-didn't-bark on California's most recent
| wave of consumer-focused regulation is the Supreme Court.
|
| The stereotypical view of the Court majority as a bunch of right-
| wing corporatists doesn't hang together in this instance: They've
| rejected the so-called "dormant Commerce Clause" in a case
| centered around CA's ethically raised pork standards, and
| generally seem unconcerned with arbitrary 50-state regulation of
| commerce so long as Congress has not chosen to intervene.
| reaperman wrote:
| Progress is good to see, but I fear this will still result in
| only large expensive assembled "components" being made available.
| Like for a MacBook, instead of being able to buy a $0.02
| capacitor replacement, Apple will probably sell the whole
| mainboard "part" for $2,000.
|
| Edit: I was a bit lazy in my writing and what I really meant were
| things like inexpensive proprietary power management ICs, NVMe
| storage modules, and/or T2 security chips, USB controller ICs,
| etc.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Is there a replaceable capacitor in a MacBook?
|
| https://www.ifixit.com/News/62674/m2-macbook-air-teardown-ap...
|
| https://www.ifixit.com/News/54122/macbook-pro-2021-teardown
| Tempest1981 wrote:
| I see several here... is the issue the tight spacing makes it
| too hard?
|
| https://valkyrie.cdn.ifixit.com/media/2022/07/18205803/MBA_M.
| ..
| wongarsu wrote:
| There are repair shops that will replace them for you. With
| good equipment and a steady hand it's certainly possible.
|
| But if you go to an Apple-certified shop they'll just swap
| out the entire board and call it a day. In Apple's mind
| those are not replaceable. In their repair system Apple
| treats a MacBook as a collection of maybe 20 parts and a
| bunch of screws.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Yes, at least I would not be able to do it with the
| household soldering iron I have.
| reaperman wrote:
| You might not but you could pay a semi-affordable third
| party repair place like Louis Rossmann to do it for you.
| That still helps the general consumer, even if its not
| "DIY".
| lacksconfidence wrote:
| You would probably need a microscope and some appropriate
| tools. Looking at the 10's of thousands of $$ my neighbor
| has in metalworking tools, there isn't much of a problem
| asking home enthusiasts to buy some tools to do what they
| need.
| datpiff wrote:
| All of them are replaceable but Apple won't provide the part
| numbers.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Interesting. I would have assumed anyone with the skill to
| work on something that tiny would be so expensive as to
| make repairs not worth it.
| reaperman wrote:
| They are expensive labor but still less than half the
| cost of a whole new logic board with CPU, RAM, NVMe, etc.
| Looking at something like $600 instead of $1200+. Plus
| with Apple's authorized solution you are guaranteed to
| lose all your data, whereas third-party repair shops that
| do board-level repairs may often be able to avoid data
| loss.
|
| My friend and I both sent our MacBooks into Louis
| Rossmann the same week. He spilled a cup of water on his,
| mine just killed itself for no reason. The repairs were
| expensive but they managed to not lose any data, and it
| still saved us many hundreds of dollars each vs. doing an
| Apple-authorized repair.
| tzs wrote:
| If a capacitor fails there are two cases:
|
| 1. The capacitor is part of a chip. There is no practical way
| for you to figure out that the capacitor has failed. You will
| just know at best that the chip is not working right. And even
| if you could somehow find out that a capacitor on the chip
| failed there is no practical way you could replace it.
|
| In short, if a capacitor on a chip fails you will need a new
| chip.
|
| 2. It is a discrete capacitor. Probably surface mount soldered
| onto a PCB, possibly thru-hole soldered onto a PCB, or maybe
| some other kind of package with leads soldered across something
| else like the terminals of a switch or something like that.
|
| In this case it is a commodity part. You go to DigiKey or
| similar, find a capacitor that with the same capacitance,
| voltage rating, ESR, temperature range, etc,, which will be
| available from many manufacturers, and DigiKey will be happy to
| sell it to you for a few cents (plus $7 shipping).
|
| It would be nice if the device maker had to tell you the
| electrical parameters you need to match when buying a
| replacements capacitor, but it would be overkill to make all
| the device makers actually sell such readily available
| commodity parts.
| reaperman wrote:
| These are all great points. I was a lazy in my writing and
| what I really meant were things like inexpensive proprietary
| power management ICs, NVMe storage modules, and/or T2
| security chips, USB controller ICs, etc.
| fredsmith219 wrote:
| The seven-years provision seems a bit heavy handed. That may
| significantly raise the cost of doing business in California and
| result in companies not selling their products there. It will be
| interesting to see how this plays out.
| ZoomerCretin wrote:
| California would not pass these laws if it meant companies
| would stop doing business in their state. They know that they
| are too big of a market to write off, which is why they feel
| comfortable passing these laws. As an example, all of the auto
| industry faces tougher emissions standards because of
| California's stricter regulations.
| chroma wrote:
| I don't think all manufacturers follow CARB for all the cars
| they build. When I lived in California I knew several people
| who bought their cars in Arizona because it meant they'd have
| more horsepower and fewer parts that could break. Also I
| removed the extra California emissions junk on my motorcycle
| because it caused the bike to leak fuel if it fell over.
| jppittma wrote:
| I had some hope we'd survive the climate crisis. We're dead
| lmao.
| red-iron-pine wrote:
| there are a billion people in China, and another billion
| in India.
|
| only 40 mil in California, and most consumer use bikes /
| cars / whatever are a drop in the carbon bucket.
|
| we could, and should do better, but unless the rest of
| the world is onboard it's moot.
| chroma wrote:
| The device didn't improve emissions. It was designed to
| try and prevent gas fumes from coming out of the tank. It
| technically did do that... but only if the bike was
| upright.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| >It technically did do that... but only if the bike was
| upright.
|
| Which is the expected and normal state of a motorcycle.
| chroma wrote:
| Yeah and they also fall over all the time. And when that
| happened, it leaked gallons of gas. It increased the
| amount of pollution and created a fire hazard.
| RankingMember wrote:
| I would be very surprised if a company would consider leaving
| the world's 5th largest economy due to a 7-year parts
| requirement.
| [deleted]
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Related to the topic, it is commonly said/claimed that there is
| federal law requiring automakers to have parts available for 10
| years for any car they sell. As far as I can tell this is not
| true. If they offer a warranty, they must have parts available
| for the term of the warranty. And for emissions control parts,
| under some circumstances they are obligated to repair defects
| discovered within 8 years (this doesn't necessarily mean they are
| obligated to stock the original parts).
|
| In reality, for any reasonably popular car, there will be OEM or
| aftermarket parts available for most things that commonly fail or
| wear out, for 10 years if not much longer.
| jiveturkey wrote:
| > If they offer a warranty,
|
| Not even that. Tesla (most famously, but many others) have very
| long waiting lists for many parts, parts that are in no short
| supply for the purpose of building entire cars, but are not
| available at all as parts.
| system2 wrote:
| What's the point of it if the manufacturer makes the parts
| extremely expensive? For example, Apple's 4k screen for iPhone 11
| Pro Max is $400 at apple. The phone itself is $150 on eBay.
| Aftermarket parts cause functional impairment (truetone gone if
| 3rd party screen used). This bill should be "use any part without
| software limitations".
| skywal_l wrote:
| I would rather force companies to release schematics,
| specifications and documentations after, say 3 years and let the
| market decide which part must be made. With competition it would
| lower the parts price and potentially these parts could remain
| available for ever and if the product is actually great could
| even become a standard. For example, those parts could be reused
| to make a new product.
| 1letterunixname wrote:
| > after, say 3 years
|
| Why the wait? Delay is bullshit. Release all the things on
| launch.
| anon____ wrote:
| Exactly. That's what patents are for. No need to be
| secretive.
| mortureb wrote:
| So ridiculous regulations and requirements before a small
| company can get a product out. This should only apply to
| companies above a certain cap.
| red-iron-pine wrote:
| already a lot of regs that only apply to companies with 20+
| employees, so it's not crazy to assume this is the case, too.
| maerF0x0 wrote:
| Also we've seen auto OEMs repeatedly raise their hands saying
| "We make parts, but supply chain issues" meaning you
| effectively cant.
| mortureb wrote:
| So ridiculous regulations and requirements before a small
| company can get a product out. Not to mention, ready to use
| blueprints for companies in China and India. This should only
| apply to companies above a certain cap.
| user3939382 wrote:
| Let's have both, with parts applying only if you're a certain
| size.
| hedora wrote:
| The document says "necessary software", so, presumably you'll
| be able to do stuff like swap out components and jtag (or
| whatever) your design verification test suites, keys, firmware,
| etc., simply by following the steps in the software
| documentation.
|
| /s
| nuancebydefault wrote:
| I don't think releasing schematics is a good idea. There is so
| much more to a production process than documentation. QA is a
| huge factor in fitniss for purpose and durability. Also, spare
| parts can/should preferrably be the ouput of the same machinery
| and production lines as the original parts, which makes it
| better for the environment.
| JohnFen wrote:
| Your other points are well-taken, but don't address why you
| don't think releasing schematics is a good idea. Schematics
| make diagnosis and repair possible without having to engage
| in reverse-engineering.
| nuancebydefault wrote:
| Good point. I actually meant, releasing schematics for the
| sake of 3rd parties reproducing parts of probably inferior
| quality, would be not a great idea. Schematics for
| understanding, yes, but those can be more high level -
| black box if you want - schematics for the sake of
| understanding how the system works or interconnects. A
| repair manual.
| lloeki wrote:
| > With competition it would lower the parts price
|
| Around here repair shops with lower prices than first party get
| shitty parts. At best they're not on par spec-wise on non-
| breaking things (e.g max nits or color reproduction on a
| display), at worst they either last way less than third party
| (e.g battery) or are outright dangerous (damaging other parts
| or outright fire hazard).
|
| I've been burned often enough that for me it's first party or
| nothing, and get third party only as a last resort.
|
| People at large don't care about/understand these immaterial
| things so at scale competition is a race to the bottom.
| MatthiasPortzel wrote:
| This doesn't make sense because most hardware with custom parts
| are actively manufactured and sold for longer than 3 years. If
| companies were forced to release all internal documentation,
| that only guarantees that competitors would begin manufacturing
| clones while the original product was still being sold. It
| wouldn't accomplish the goal of getting replacement parts in
| the hands of consumers.
| hedora wrote:
| Patent and copyright law already prevent that.
|
| Most devices are built on lines that also produce stuff for
| direct competitors (in places with traditionally-lax IP
| laws).
| JohnFen wrote:
| It wasn't really that long ago when you got schematics for
| pretty much any piece of electronics you bought, because it
| made repairs possible.
|
| That practice stopped because manufacturers wanted you to
| throw your broken things away and replace them rather than
| fix them.
| contravariant wrote:
| I think a responsibility to ensure parts are available gives a
| more pressing motivation to use parts that are already
| available.
|
| If they only need to publish schematics there's no strong
| reason to avoid custom parts, other than cost but that's the
| same as now.
| lettergram wrote:
| Easier to force them to make parts available or release any IP
| related claims.
| phh wrote:
| > I would rather force companies to release schematics,
| specifications and documentations after, say 3 years
|
| On top of that I would had that this documentation must have
| been released to an escrow before being releasing the product
| (many hardware companies come and go within few years. I
| wouldn't mind an exception to the escrow for "big enough"
| companies). Also, the secure boot keys must also be released if
| a major security (~ local root privilege escalation without
| hardware access) issue hasn't been fixed for one year.
| hedora wrote:
| I'd go further and dictate that a reference implementation of
| the software be required in source code form, and the
| instructions include a secure boot bypass (e.g., cut this
| trace on the board, pull a jumper, etc).
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _instructions include a secure boot bypass_
|
| So do NSO's work for them.
| kdamica wrote:
| I totally agree here. The bill is great in spirit but this
| could be onerous for small companies.
| ImJamal wrote:
| >this could be onerous for small companies
|
| Probably why Apple supports it.
| ethbr1 wrote:
| It'd be nice to see an "OR" provision within the time window
| too.
|
| As in, provide spare parts OR release schematics and
| specifications that allow others to produce them.
| bombcar wrote:
| I'd go with "make parts available for two years after sale
| ends, and then release schematics. Schematics are not
| required to be released as long as the parts are still
| reasonably available."
| ethbr1 wrote:
| I was thinking of the schematics loophole from a small
| company perspective, for whom x years of parts
| availability might be impractical.
|
| But they could use the loophole to release schematics and
| relieve themselves of the burden. Win/win!
| jwells89 wrote:
| This would need to be paired with regulations regarding the
| quality of third party replacement parts, otherwise we'll end
| up with a lot of near-ewaste quality parts flooding into the
| market and tripping up consumers who don't know any better or
| simply don't care ("why buy the $75 high quality part when
| there's this $15 shoddy alternative on Amazon?").
| maerF0x0 wrote:
| > when there's this $15 shoddy alternative on Amazon?
|
| smart consumers eventually learn. I don't buy electronics
| from amazon anymore. I probably never will. Too many near
| fires. Too many things lasting just longer than the return
| window etc.
| red-iron-pine wrote:
| or any 3rd party marketplace, really. Newegg Marketplace is
| the same people who are on Amazon, so buy direct from them.
| If the stuff is fake then I can at least get @ them
| directly, and they can make changes to their supply chain.
| colechristensen wrote:
| Minnesota's right to repair law does require documentation and
| tools be available.
|
| It has too many carveouts, just the same. But things existing
| in the first place is progress.
|
| >In general, the Digital Fair Repair Act requires manufactures
| of certain electronic products to make documentation, parts,
| and tools for diagnosis, maintenance, or repair available to
| independent repair providers and product owners on fair and
| reasonable terms. Minnesota Statutes Section 325E.72, subd.
| 3(a).
| arcticbull wrote:
| Well, there's a trend now towards proprietary ASICs - and the
| market isn't going to be doing custom ASIC runs of M1s are
| they? The cost would be astronomical. The manufacturing and
| assembly techniques for a lot of modern electronics are simply
| beyond the capacity of most manufacturers.
| penguin_booze wrote:
| I've had a moment of reckoning the other day: my Android phone is
| rather old by recent cool-ness standards: it's a Moto G5 plus,
| happily running Android 8.0. Just in the past week, two of the
| apps I use have dropped the support of Android 8.0. I don't know
| what feature they decided take up on (the gain) by dropping
| support, or what load shed is, but I was not pleased that this
| has started happening.
|
| On the one hand, I'm rather relieved: I don't have to keep
| downloading the endless stream of "new" features that I don't
| want. More often than not, I've found the updates keep breaking
| something, or upset my established pattern of working. On the
| other hand, I'm facing the constant danger of some of the vital
| apps dropping support: for example, the work-related apps,
| without which I won't be able to log in remotely.
|
| I suppose there's the option of rooting and installing a custom
| ROM. But then, there's no guarantee that it'll continue to work
| as before, in all its full glory. It's also the case that some
| apps (especially the work-related ones) refuse to work on a
| rooted device.
|
| So, no matter how strongly I'm determined to stay put, I'll
| eventually be forced to get a new phone.
|
| I guess what I'm saying is that a modern devices are a complex
| ecosystem. Just having the right tools at hand, passing the right
| law, or having an open-source, DIY, path ahead doesn't
| necessarily mean that things will be same as before. For some
| things, we are necessarily dependent on other people doing the
| right things--and some of those things, nobody can force them to
| do it.
| jwells89 wrote:
| Speaking as a mobile dev, if OS versions are dropped in apps
| it's usually to try to keep the scope of supported devices/OSes
| within the realm of sanity, especially for smaller
| companies/teams. Long-term support of older OSes is easier on
| Android than iOS but can still pose challenges.
| hahn-kev wrote:
| Yeah, they may have looked at the number of users on Android
| 8 and decided it was worth it for everyone else to stop
| spending time making sure they don't break it.
| penguin_booze wrote:
| Yeah, I'm sympathetic to that. If I were the developer, I
| don't want an old version holding me hostage from moving on
| (for some definition of 'moving on'). As a user, it's
| sometimes that helplessness that turns into entitlement.
| paulmd wrote:
| [flagged]
| warning26 wrote:
| Can you elaborate? I'm not familiar with why android fans would
| make those particular arguments.
| paulmd wrote:
| sure, literal tech media whining about anti-theft being too
| good: https://www.macworld.com/article/1485237/mac-
| security-t2-chi...
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34545028
|
| literally and directly advocating resale of stolen goods,
| because "who cares about theft, it's cheaper", on HN itself
| no less lmao.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35945110
|
| "oh noooo it's just one guy" lmao no it's not, do you want me
| to continue to mine?
|
| literal mass-theft rings:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35475696
| causi wrote:
| Who is "them"? Until Apple was strong-armed into launching the
| self-service program they didn't sell first-party replacement
| parts at all, let alone for seven years after launch.
| paulmd wrote:
| damn, so how long a lifecycle did sony do before they were
| forced?
| causi wrote:
| What does this have to do with Sony? As far as I know,
| every manufacturer including Sony and Apple do their utmost
| to extract as much revenue from consumers as possible.
| throwaway48487 wrote:
| That ship has now sailed for (almost?) all manufacturers, but I
| would like to remind that Apple was the pioneer in normalizing
| anti-consumer practices like non-removable batteries.
| [deleted]
| nimos wrote:
| As much as I kind of like this it seems like this is basically
| another freebie for random offshore companies like BEEMOK and
| JOOBLE that are spamming stuff via amazon/temu/et all. There is
| basically 0% chance they even exist 7 years later and then
| another basically 0% chance you could actually get any remedy
| against them even if they did.
| PeterisP wrote:
| The general solution, at least as done by some other countries,
| is to hold the seller/importer also wholly responsible for
| upholding all the regulations and warranties - so if the
| manufacturer is bankrupt, or not responding, or overseas, then
| that's the problem of whoever sold you the lemon and took your
| money (i.e. Amazon, Temu, Walmart, etc); if they allow shady
| sellers on their marketplace, that's their loss.
| red-iron-pine wrote:
| the main point is that someone has to do the due diligence on
| the product, and it shouldn't be the consumer, especially
| when there are few to no remedies.
| BiteCode_dev wrote:
| The state could request proof of a stock of parts before
| allowing something to pass customs.
| mcpackieh wrote:
| Customs for a state? I don't think that exists, or would even
| be legal to exist.
| ryanschaefer wrote:
| Relevant section of the constitution. Don't know if this
| would fall under inspection:
|
| > No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay
| any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what
| may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection
| Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid
| by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of
| the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall
| be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
| donatj wrote:
| I've always wondered about the constitutionality of
| California's state-to-state border stations where they
| check every car for produce. Seems iffy.
| nonameiguess wrote:
| It says right there they can do what is needed to execute
| inspection laws. They just can't charge you to import.
| California had serious problems with Mediterranean fruit
| flies destroying crops from the 50s onward, which is why
| they started doing this.
| strictnein wrote:
| Yeah, just encountered those on a road trip and wondered
| how they were legal. Was right on the Cali/Oregon border
| for a couple of days and those checkpoints were also only
| sporadicly staffed, so I don't understand the point
| anyways.
| ncallaway wrote:
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maine_v._Taylor
|
| SCOTUS has ruled that, with specific and compelling
| reasons, states can implement these kinds of interstate
| restrictions. If Congress wanted to, they could pass a
| federal law that would pre-empt the state law, but has
| not done so.
| red-iron-pine wrote:
| it would also mean that the FedGov would have to evaluate
| or interact with every sort of intra-state interaction,
| which would get onerous and expensive quickly.
| ncallaway wrote:
| > FedGov would have to evaluate or interact with every
| sort of intra-state interaction
|
| I don't think that's the case. It would be up to
| Congress. They have the authority to pass a law that
| says: "No state may put up any intra-state barriers to
| commerce at all", and that would be that.
|
| Or they could choose to pass a law that's a lot more
| specific, in which case they would need to deal with each
| intra-state interaction.
| BiteCode_dev wrote:
| Ah, right, it's the US, states are not countries.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| Absurd bureaucracy, and what are you gonna do when it ceases
| to exist after the paperwork is filed and hte aprts are just
| funneled back into manufacturing? Making manufacturers bank
| the schematics and auto-releasing them after manufacture ends
| is less work for the manufacturer and easier for the market.
| racked wrote:
| As a consumer this makes me happy, but god, California must be an
| awful place to run a business. They keep piling on the most
| business-hostile laws. Another silly cookie consent law,
| unpoliced shoplifting in SF, where does it end?
| charcircuit wrote:
| Phones don't get security updates for 7 years. It's irresponsible
| to repair such old phones, prolonging their use.
| Sindisil wrote:
| You're holding it wrong.
|
| Phones should be required to get (at least) security updates
| for (at least) the same period as they are covered by
| repairability requirements.
| charcircuit wrote:
| Linux LTS is not even supported for 7 years, but only 4 years
| for the latest one. It's not a linear function for how much
| it costs to add another year of support.
| Sindisil wrote:
| Nothing says that they can't ship a newer version of device
| software, if they find that less costly (as long as the
| newer sw fully supports the device, of course).
| hermannj314 wrote:
| Someone got a nice re-election contribution to exempt "video game
| consoles" from the bill.
|
| No mention of what makes video game consoles so miraculously
| different than a video camera, television, etc.
|
| It seems like a good step for consumer rights aside from that.
| alpaca128 wrote:
| Can't wait for a smartphone brand to argue their phone is a
| game console because you can play games on it.
| bathtub365 wrote:
| Apple has been making uncharacteristic strides in this area.
| At WWDC this year they announced that Death Stranding was
| coming to Macs, and at the Sept 12 event they had a fairly
| long piece about how the iPhone 15 Pro is capable of playing
| AAA games. I wouldn't be surprised if this was actually a
| conscious strategy for this angle but that's speculation.
| hermannj314 wrote:
| The statute's definition of video game console specifically
| disallows computers, tablets and cell phones from being
| considered a video game console.
|
| Section J9
| fulafel wrote:
| Does this apply to general purpouse computers such as the
| PS3? (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OtherOS)
| andjd wrote:
| So, there is a defensible reason for this carve-out.
|
| For generations now, video game consoles have had very
| aggressive cryptographic pairing of parts, done in the name of
| securing the hardware against hacking by the console owner.
| This is done to prevent mods to enable cheating and piracy.
| Given that consoles are often sold at a loss with profits
| recouped on game sales, there's a justification for this.
|
| Providing replacement parts for game consoles would also
| require tools to re-pair the replacement parts. If these tools
| need to be provided to independent repair shops, there's
| approximately a 100 % chance of them getting leaked and
| destroying the security of the console.
|
| I'm not going to say that this is a good or a bad thing. I'm
| just pointing out that there's a real reason for lawmakers to
| treat game consoles different than phones or computers, and
| that it isn't necessarily a sign of corruption.
| maerF0x0 wrote:
| > at a loss with profits recouped on game sales
|
| and perhaps the FTC should be smashing down that practice as
| anticompetitive?
| fiddlerwoaroof wrote:
| I don't see how it's anticompetitive: any startup trying to
| get into the space is going to be making the case for
| product-market fit in terms of things like subscriptions
| and selling access to developers. I'd think a one-time per
| customer console sale at a loss would be one of the easier
| expenditures to justify to investors.
| bogwog wrote:
| Why must the government pass laws to protect the specific
| business model of exactly 3 mega corporations, a business
| model which harms consumers and harms competition?
|
| The DMCA exception for consoles is the same thing. The
| government is just taking these companies word for it, and
| harming everyone else. If Playstation/Xbox/Nintendo can't
| survive without these handouts from the government, then why
| should they? It's not like game consoles are a necessity. The
| free market is what should decide whether a business model
| succeeds or not.
|
| And regarding privacy, that's bs. If consoles somehow become
| overrun with piracy, then publishers can just move their
| games to other platforms. PC is much easier to pirate on, is
| in general used by more tech savvy people, and it doesn't
| have a rampant piracy problem. Steam wouldn't be as
| successful as it is otherwise.
| LocalH wrote:
| That heavy cryptography is why the Xbox One is shaping up to
| be the least preservable console we have ever seen.
| avar wrote:
| Even if we accept this argument, the parts you're talking
| about are a tiny proportion of video game console parts.
|
| There's no reason you shouldn't be able to e.g. buy
| replacement analog stick parts.
| Aerroon wrote:
| > _Given that consoles are often sold at a loss with profits
| recouped on game sales_
|
| I've wondered about this before: how is this not anti-
| conpetitive pricing? Is it okay because Sony/MS don't raise
| prices?
| dmoy wrote:
| US law in that area looks more at consumer harm, not
| incidental harm to other companies, IIRC. There's a
| separate way to get in trouble here around predatory
| pricing, but I think that's more complicated (you have to
| be doing it specifically to drive people out of business).
| It depends on what the rest of the market does. See
| https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-
| guidance/gui...
|
| Specifically
|
| > Pricing below a competitor's costs occurs in many
| competitive markets and generally does not violate the
| antitrust laws. Sometimes the low-pricing firm is simply
| more efficient. Pricing below your own costs is also not a
| violation of the law unless it is part of a strategy to
| eliminate competitors, and when that strategy has a
| dangerous probability of creating a monopoly for the
| discounting firm so that it can raise prices far into the
| future and recoup its losses.
|
| So
|
| > Is it okay because Sony/MS don't raise prices?
|
| Yes exactly this.
|
| See also:
|
| Printers sold below cost with expensive ink refills.
|
| E-readers, often
|
| Razors for shaving - the base or chassis or whatever you
| call it is often sold below cost.
| Aerroon wrote:
| Thank you!
| dmoy wrote:
| No problem, it's a good question, and it only works that
| way because of the particulars of US law. It differs for
| other countries, or even within the same country over
| time (the US's consumer focus was less strong in earlier
| years).
| criddell wrote:
| The _consoles-are-sold-at-a-loss_ explanation has always
| seemed like an extraordinarily week argument for giving
| Microsoft and Sony a pass on bad behavior.
|
| Their consoles may be sold at a loss at launch, but I don't
| know of any console hardware that wasn't net profitable
| over it's lifetime with the possible exception of the XBox
| with the ring-of-death problem.
| pjc50 wrote:
| This is also done for iPhones, which have not been exempted.
|
| The "security" of the console against "unauthorized" software
| is arguably against the public interest. Is it really to the
| customer's benefit to exclude software providers from the
| market? Haven't we been round this with app store discourse?
|
| > consoles are often sold at a loss with profits recouped on
| game sales
|
| This used to be true, but is it still true?
| kube-system wrote:
| The purpose of gaming consoles is to play games, and
| allowing cheating software on them ruins the experience for
| others. Consoles are not general purpose computers, they
| have a specific use which is gaming, and it is reasonable
| to protect the fairness required to have a good experience
| when using it in the way it was intended to be used.
| safety1st wrote:
| You don't need to lock down a console and prevent
| "unauthorized software installs" to prevent cheating. You
| do what game developers have been doing on PCs for years:
| validate all of the player's actions on the server, look
| for players with suspicious patterns of activity then ban
| them.
| kube-system wrote:
| Behavior analysis is one approach used on PC games, and
| it has varying degrees of success. There are weaknesses
| to this approach and it tends to be a cat-and-mouse game
| of cheat developers adding fuzzing and anti-cheat
| developers adjusting their behavior analysis. Visit
| forums for games that use this kind of anti-cheat and
| you'll see people complaining about cheaters.
|
| More popular games have shifted towards anti-cheat
| systems that run at ring zero and prevent you from
| playing the game unless it is happy with everything
| running on your system.
| short_sells_poo wrote:
| Phones are not general purpose computers, they have a
| specific use which is to communicate with people over a
| distance.
|
| See?
|
| But you can in fact turn it around, because both phones
| and games consoles are in fact general purpose computers
| that are able to execute any program, before the
| arbitrary limitations are imposed on them by the
| manufacturers.
| kube-system wrote:
| My point is that it is normal for special purpose devices
| to be regulated in such a way that prioritizes their
| primary purpose. And this _is_ true for smartphones. The
| parts of your phone that must comply with telecom
| regulatory standards are locked down in black boxes
| separate from the main system.
| lukeschlather wrote:
| The problem is this doesn't prioritize their primary
| purpose. It ensures that the device will simply stop
| functioning within a relatively short time frame. This
| sort of crypto-locking of parts makes them impossible to
| fulfill their primary purpose when a part fails and the
| manufacturer won't sell a replacement part. It's
| unacceptable to brick devices in the name of cheat
| defense.
| kube-system wrote:
| I disagree. If it is not playable due to the
| manufacturing failing to prevent cheating, there is no
| need to replace parts on it, as it would be broken either
| way. A fair playing field is essential part of a
| functional game.
|
| If the immobilizer on your car fails, it will brick your
| car too. The solution isn't to prohibit immobilizers and
| shrug our shoulders at car thieves, it is to require
| manufacturers to provide parts. Which we have long done
| for cars in the US.
|
| TL;DR: Don't prohibits locks that protect consumers just
| because the lock could need maintenance. Require the
| manufacturer to provide parts for the lock.
| pjc50 wrote:
| There's at least four different cases which are being
| conflated:
|
| - genuinely third party software, e.g. the short lived
| Playstation Linux => "good"
|
| - modified software (usually "bad" but we can find non-
| bad cases)
|
| - piracy. "Private servers" probably count under this
|
| - preservation (unfortunately indistinguishable from
| piracy, but covers what happens when required online
| services shut down)
| kube-system wrote:
| Yes, but console makers don't really get to choose how,
| or with what intent, downstream users will modify devices
| if given a window to do so.
| sim7c00 wrote:
| This is correct to be honest. rooting your phone doesn't
| ruin other peoples phone experience unless you perform
| actually illegal conduct perhaps (maybe some hacks or
| w/e?). Cheating in a game is not illegal, so companies
| need to take it upon themselves to prevent it. This is
| honestly fairly logical. it does not at all compare to PC
| or Phones.
| kube-system wrote:
| And when people "root their phone" they are just
| modifying _part_ of the device. The baseband is closed
| source and illegal /impossible to modify in order to
| protect the network and spectrum.
| joecool1029 wrote:
| Some of us do get pretty close and modify stuff like EFS
| to enable/disable functions (voNR) and enable bands that
| were present but not legal at the time the device was
| certified. In US, band 77 was disabled on many devices
| but later became legal to use. The manufacturers didn't
| want to pay for the recertification but the device is
| capable otherwise. We also sometimes add band
| combinations (for carrier aggregation) that the
| manufacturer missed.
| parineum wrote:
| AFAIK, it's still true for Sony/Microsoft but hasn't been
| true with Nintendo for a while, I think since the Gamecube
| (when they stopped trying to play the performance game).
| hermannj314 wrote:
| 42488.2.f already mentions limitations in the bill to prevent
| overriding anti-theft.
|
| They could have extended that to include anti-piracy or anti-
| cheat or cryptographic pairing, but they didn't. They created
| a specific carve out for video game consoles and not for
| those other things you mentioned.
|
| When the government uses words generically to define its
| compelling interest to regulate, they are usually sincere.
| When the government uses words to protect an industry
| explicitly, they usually have been bought.
| ndriscoll wrote:
| The trend of "securing" (i.e. sabotaging) hardware against
| the owner is a large part of why these laws are needed in the
| first place.
| nobodyandproud wrote:
| Not having these carve-outs would force some local
| manufacturing know-how.
|
| And solve some of the major garbage issues of our times.
|
| Of course the billwriters couldn't push for a later timeframe
| for those "exceptions" rather than an outright pass.
| [deleted]
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| It's weird to me that video game companies apparently have this
| much lobbying power but all the other consumer electronics
| corporations don't. Are they really much richer than all the
| others combined?
| paulmd wrote:
| the regulation is much more about regulating a governmental
| solution to the android-iphone wars than regulating consumer
| freedoms or e-waste etc. those are convenient levers for the
| powers involved.
|
| tim sweeny does not care about unlocking your xbox. at no
| point was that a possible outcome or a consideration in his
| thoughts, no matter how much the android guys waved the
| flags.
|
| it's about unreal and unity legislating higher gross margins,
| and about breaking the apple restrictions on facebook's
| permission requests, and about safari resistance against
| google chrome browser monoculture. and y'all lost.
|
| is that crass? I guess, but it doesn't matter, because we
| have to live with the google browser monoculture anyway. I
| had some people recently tell me "EU will just regulate it if
| it becomes a problem!". how long did it take to become a
| problem? didn't google move pretty much right into the
| enhanced ad profile thing?
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36823031
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33821820
|
| it is what it is, the laws are passed, but holy shit the
| arguments have been so transparently bad-faith, or incredibly
| blind.
|
| I'm just so tired of the fanboy wars and the "wow did you
| actually read someone advocating resale of stolen/mugged
| parts to bring prices down". Yes, on HN no less. The android
| fans are shameless. I'm so tired of the "wow iPhone fans are
| brainless" (earlier this week). Etc.
|
| It's become so casually normalized for android fanboys to be
| toxic and gloat about anyone who calls it out. It's so
| fucking weird. When did this happen. 2012? 2014?
|
| And no, there is no iPhone contingent going around calling
| android people brainless blue bubble sheeple or saying that
| their purchase melted their brains etc. it's crazy. I am so
| tired of the way the android contingent _casually_
| misbehaves, everything is brainless this and brain-rotted
| that and sheeple this.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37491711
| p_j_w wrote:
| The people you're trying to embarrass by linking here look
| pretty reasonable.
|
| >there is no iPhone contingent going around calling android
| people brainless blue bubble sheeple
|
| On HN? Maybe not. Out in real life? Yes, there absolutely
| is. I recently got an iPhone, and the number of people who
| said something along the lines of "OMG you finally got an
| iPhone, yay!" was fucking obnoxious.
| tzs wrote:
| It also looks like it doesn't apply to all-terrain vehicles, or
| to machinery, equipment, implements, or attachments used for or
| in connection with:
|
| 1. Lawn, garden, golf course, landscaping, or grounds
| maintenance,
|
| 2. Planting, cultivating, irrigating, harvesting, and producing
| agricultural or forestry products,
|
| 3. Raising, feeding, or tending to, or harvesting products
| from, livestock and any other activity in connection with those
| activities,
|
| 4. Industrial, construction, maintenance, mining, or utility
| activities or applications, including, but not limited to,
| material handling equipment,
|
| although that exclusion does not apply to "self-propelled
| vehicles designed primarily for the transportation of persons
| or property on a street or highway" even if they are used for
| one of the above things.
|
| There is also an exclusion for alarm systems, which are "an
| assembly of equipment and devices arranged to detect a hazard
| or signal the presence of an off-normal situation".
| Sindisil wrote:
| AKA the John Deere exception.
|
| FFS, Deere's egregious behavior is a large part of the push
| for RTR legislation.
|
| Disappointing, if not unsurprising.
| deelowe wrote:
| And as planned, were sitting here blaming Deere and not the
| politicians who allow this to happen. Deere is simply
| looking out for its best interests. The real scum are these
| so called "representatives" who place corporate interests
| over small businesses and citizens.
|
| Walk through your local Lowe's and home Depot and take a
| close look at their lawn equipment. It's all junk that will
| be thrown away in a decade. Plastic bushings, plastic
| spindles, flimsy exhaust mounts, etc. If you seriously take
| the time to look closely, you can see where you they are
| engineered to fail.
|
| Even contractor brands like Stihl are starting to do this
| stuff. Most of their trimmers now do not have a grease fill
| port on the head. To make matters worse, replacing a head
| costs almost as much as an entire trimmer...
| Sindisil wrote:
| [flagged]
| babypuncher wrote:
| Those representatives get elected because wealthy
| companies like John Deere spend lots of money to make
| sure that happens.
|
| Take the money out of politics. Pass strict campaign
| finance reform laws, kill super PACs, and put severe
| limitations on what qualifies as "lobbying", and a lot of
| these problems will go away.
| p_j_w wrote:
| >The real scum are these so called "representatives" who
| place corporate interests over small businesses and
| citizens.
|
| I don't see why we can't find both to be scum.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| Because only one is being paid for by public funds to be
| impartial.
| pengaru wrote:
| Clearly one side is giving substantially more.
| AYBABTME wrote:
| The corporation can also be scum by virtue of being an
| unpleasant actor in society.
| standardUser wrote:
| You can call them "scum" if it makes you feel better. But
| even if the greatest shame campaign the world has ever
| seen was to miraculously convince John Deere to change
| their ways, other companies would just step in and take
| advantage of the system the same way John Deere has.
|
| The only solution is to change the rules.
| erulabs wrote:
| Yes but it's much harder calculus. What's the net of a
| very large tractor manufacturer existing or not existing?
| If they lobby in a way you don't like but they also cause
| cereals to be 15% cheaper, how can you calculate their
| "unpleasant"-ness?
|
| A public official taking a contribution in return for
| carving out an exception in a law is quite an easy one.
| AYBABTME wrote:
| If the politician is scum as a result of having ought to
| judge the corporations' lobby as being scum, then it
| follows that the politician is able to come up with a
| calculus where the corporation is scum. And if the
| politician is able to, so am I.
| [deleted]
| mjburgess wrote:
| The same calculus applies to the politician, you're just
| imparting certain social duties on one and not the other.
|
| If you want to know why american society is prone to this
| sort of privitized corruption: this is it. Business is
| seen as a pure mechanism, but politics is a place of
| hyper-individualized duty.
|
| In europe, i think the reverse is more often true.
| Businesses are seen in personalized ways, as having
| explicit social duties compromised by greed; and politics
| is a pure mechanism.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| Erm no - businesses can also be moral. In fact there's an
| enormous social pressure to look good. That's why people
| get fired for things that happen on Twitter.
|
| The only difference is businesses get money for doing
| something someone else wants, and they need to keep doing
| that. Politicians take your money and can't even do the
| one thing they should be doing: be impartial and
| resistant to even more free money.
| mjburgess wrote:
| >Erm no - businesses can also be moral.
|
| That's my point. We agree.
|
| > businesses get money for doing something someone else
| wants > Politicians take your money and can't even do the
| one thing they should be doing
|
| ^ Here is my issue. This is a cognitive-dissonance. You
| can equally say: businesses failing their social duty
| aren't giving society what it wants; rather, they are
| sating the greed of their customers, shareholders and
| execs.
|
| Whereas politicians are balancing competing power
| interests into a compromise piece of legislation with a
| chance of being passed, and thereby improving the
| situation; if, very imperfectly.
|
| You see, under these reframings it is the biz failing,
| not the polician.
|
| to be clear, I do not agree with either framing. My point
| is only how quickly americans adopt this "if someone's
| buying, it's excusable" morality as applied to business.
| As-if politics were a place of heroic powerful
| individuals, and business merely a mechanism.
|
| The reality is both is true of both. Business can be held
| to much higher standards; and politicans can be more
| subtly understood.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| > My point is only how quickly americans adopt this "if
| someone's buying, it's excusable" morality as applied to
| business.
|
| I'm not sure why you're talking about Americans, but my
| point is that the main thing a business does is create
| employment and useful goods or services.
|
| > As-if politics were a place of heroic powerful
| individuals, and business merely a mechanism.
|
| No, creating employment and useful goods or services is
| extremely important and heroic. It's just different to
| being the person who takes money from others on the sole
| basis that he/she will be impartial and not take bribes.
| AYBABTME wrote:
| > I'm not sure why you're talking about Americans
|
| As a foreigner in America, I think America is culturally
| particularly business oriented and holds favorable views
| on business activities (until they get too large and
| obscure, then they become led by lizards or some such),
| and in particular I think the average person here is more
| prone to think that it's ok for a business or person to
| seek to maximize their position in the market by almost
| any legal means. As in, if the player is good at the
| game, you can't blame the player (up to a point).
| robertlagrant wrote:
| They should maximise by legal means. That's how you get
| better service, lower prices and better products. That's
| why computers aren't $1m each or still in the KHz CPU
| range. Or why every company is now making electric cars.
| Or... why most things are as good as they are.
| mjburgess wrote:
| But that's an naive ideological take on the virtues of
| business; whilst at the same time you offer a naive
| cynical take on the vices of politics.
|
| D'you not see this sort of double-think taking place?
|
| Exactly the same naive gloss can be given of policitians:
| their compromises are part of the democratic process by
| which competing power interests are balanced without
| oppression. There are no Company Stores, or Company
| Scrips because corporate power is given "an inch" but no
| more. And there are FDAs and the like because Society
| gets its two inches. And so on.
|
| Politicans are creatures of a mechanism as much as
| businesses.
|
| This "reduce one to mere mechanism, but not the other" is
| pure naive ideology.
|
| Business does not "offer better prices" etc. through this
| mechanism. It offers prices every bit as flawed as
| politics offers policies.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| > But that's an naive ideological take on the virtues of
| business; whilst at the same time you offer a naive
| cynical take on the vices of politics.
|
| I don't think that's a virtue of businesses. It's their
| primary function, and their primary good: producing
| useful stuff or services for their customers, and
| employment to their employees. The more useful their
| product/service, the more money they get, and the better
| their customers' and employees' lives will be. If they
| campaign to make that easier by making regulation less
| onerous, that's in pursuit of those primary goals.
|
| That's different to a government job (e.g. in regulation-
| setting/enforcing) where their sole job is to set and
| maintain good standards in their area. They provide no
| value other than that, and if they aren't even doing
| that, then they're worse than useless. They're useless
| _and_ they cost money we aren 't allowed to refuse to
| pay.
| HeyLaughingBoy wrote:
| > you can see where you they are engineered to fail
|
| Really? Please give an example. I have been hearing this
| for at least the last 15 years and have yet to find
| someone who can offer an example of anything that was
| "engineered to fail" when challenged. Not saying it
| doesn't exist, but I'd just like to see a single example
| of it happening.
|
| Sacrificial parts that are designed to fail in order to
| mitigate a more serious failure do not count for the
| purposes of this request -- that's just Good Engineering
| Practice.
| nivenhuh wrote:
| Kitchen aid stand mixers converted from using metal
| gearing to plastic gearing in their consumer stand
| mixers. After a certain amount of use, the gear wears out
| and costs $50 for a replacement.
|
| The commercial line still uses metal gears. The
| maintenance on it is to check grease/lubricant after a
| certain amount of use.
|
| (We used the stand mixer daily. Our home edition lasted
| 6-9 months before needing a gear change. The commercial
| edition has been going strong for a few years now.)
|
| I'm sure there's a reason why they moved to a fail-safe
| gear for consumer use -- but as a consumer -- I have no
| clue what that reason is. (We do ask a lot of our mixer
| tho!)
| vineyardmike wrote:
| > I'm sure there's a reason why they moved to a fail-safe
| gear for consumer use -- but as a consumer -- I have no
| clue what that reason is.
|
| As someone who just infrequently uses their gifted
| kitchen aid mixer let me offer a new perspective.
|
| I'd be ill-inclined to use it if I had to oil my kitchen
| equipment. That's the reality. I use it once a month, and
| i would be turned off if I had to add lubricant. I'm an
| engineer, I get why it's good, I get the purpose, but
| it's just one more chore I wouldn't do.
| aeyes wrote:
| Does the plastic gear break if you attempt to recreate
| "will it blend" videos at home? They probably try to sell
| this as a safety feature.
| HeyLaughingBoy wrote:
| I have one of those mixers and I've replaced the
| sacrificial gear at least 3 times, although I usually get
| the gears for far less than $50. I gotta learn to not
| overload it with bread dough :-)
|
| Based on what I see when I open up the unit, the reason
| they don't have an all metal gear train is that doing
| that would impose the need for higher strength on
| everything in the transmission and the chassis up to the
| motor. That would increase the cost to the point where it
| would cut into sales.
|
| The larger consumer mixers (6qt?) are built more heavy
| duty since I know that they can take a larger vertical
| load, but I don't know if they also have the nylon gear.
| winrid wrote:
| They can use glass reinforced plastic instead, and
| powdered metal or nylon gears like the mid range $150
| consumer drills...
| HeyLaughingBoy wrote:
| I think I may have misunderstood GP's post. I thought
| they meant that one of the gears was changed to plastic
| (as in mine) with the rest remaining metal. But it's more
| likely that they meant that the newer models are now
| using a fully plastic geartrain based on what I've read
| since.
| kortex wrote:
| Why not a shear pin? There's no need to make the (more
| expensive) gears the shear point when you can use a
| pennies-each shear pin (or shaft, or similar).
| HeyLaughingBoy wrote:
| No idea. I didn't design the thing :-)
| winrid wrote:
| Usually by using very cheap bearings which last just past
| the warranty period and cheaping out on reinforcement in
| critical areas. The AvE YouTube channel covers lots of
| this with his BOLTR teardowns.
| deaddodo wrote:
| I think people should rephrase it to "not engineered to
| last/repair". This is a much easier metric to point out
| and is about equivalent (though, less nefarious) to what
| they mean.
|
| If you use that metric, it's insanely easy to quantify.
| Just look at the average refrigerator today, compared to
| one from the 50s-70s. It's a fraction of the cost, but
| it's built from cheaper/less reliable parts in a repair-
| unfriendly (but quick to produce) manner. The idea being
| that you'll buy a new fridge every 8-12 years and recycle
| (ideally) the old one, versus spending the cost of a car
| on one and keeping it for a generation or two. _This_ is
| what planned obsolescence means, usually.
|
| The only nefariously _intended_ to "break" items that I
| can think of are electronic devices that are unrootable
| and rely on third-party networked services.
| HeyLaughingBoy wrote:
| Oh, I completely agree with you on that. Most consumer
| items are built to a price point. If you're building to
| sell at a low price, you have to keep Bill of Materials
| cost low to make selling the thing worthwhile, so it's
| not surprising that, e.g., a cheap riding mower is made
| from thin stamped steel chassis whereas a commercial one
| is mostly heavy weldments that hold up to being banged
| around for hours each day.
|
| I'm not being difficult. When I read "engineered to fail"
| that's not the impression I get from the statement.
| deaddodo wrote:
| > I'm not being difficult. When I read "engineered to
| fail" that's not the impression I get from the statement.
|
| I agree with you. I think people mean something else
| entirely, colloquially. Which is why I distinguished for
| clarity.
|
| I think the people who came up with the concept of
| "planned obsolescence" meant something entirely different
| to the zeitgeist meaning. That is, building something
| cheap with the intention of consistent replacements
| versus building something expensive with
| support/operational costs ongoing. One guarantees you
| return to them, the other you're just as likely to seek
| services elsewhere.
|
| The zeitgeist took that and morphed it into "they
| _actively_ engineer /design parts that will fail after
| two years".
| derefr wrote:
| Honestly seems to me that some BOMs (and therefore some
| practically-achievable price-points) should be illegal,
| then. You shouldn't be allowed to market something as a
| mower, if it's built such that the _act of mowing_
| gradually shakes the mower apart.
|
| Yes, a change like this would mean that, _in the short
| term_ , there'd suddenly be no "consumer" version of many
| products. But that'd _only_ be the short term. In the
| medium term, I 'd expect heavy pressure for innovation in
| materials science, with all these companies that were
| fine with plastics before, suddenly investing money and
| labor into operationalization of e.g. scaling carbon-
| fiber production.
| ultrarunner wrote:
| This sounds like me like an inquiry into "quality" and an
| attempt to make illegal those products lacking a certain
| quality.
|
| I generally call these products "<thing> shaped objects",
| e.g. a helmet shaped object that has all the outward
| appearance of an actual helmet, but does little to
| protect the wearer in the event of a crash. "DOT
| standards!" you might object, but DOT is generally known
| to be the worst standard in the world, often holding the
| industry back instead of moving it forward. If the
| department of transportation is unable to properly
| regulate safety equipment like helmets, I'm not sure I
| expect better results from a government committee
| intended to regulate the quality of nearly everything.
|
| This, of course, assumes that one can not only define
| "quality", but determine a threshold on a spectrum that
| delineates legality. Or maybe we'll just accept Tsars
| that "know it when they see it."
| derefr wrote:
| Yes, there is no _general_ definition of "quality." But
| every industry and product has its own internal, domain-
| specific definition of quality. For hard drives,
| "quality" is MTBF. For batteries, "quality" is measured
| in loss of charge capacity per charge cycle.
|
| Or let me put it this way: the commercial/industrial
| versions of these products do some things differently.
| Why do they do those things? To increase "quality." If
| the industry didn't know what its "quality" metric was,
| then it would be impossible for them to make the
| commercial/industrial product "better" for long-term
| commercial/industrial use than the consumer one.
|
| In any industry where the commercial/industrial version
| of a product -- one that lasts decades in heavy use -- is
| already an existence proof for the possibility of
| "quality" in the product category, you can simply
| regulate that the consumer version must _also_ be made to
| last at least N years of regular consumer-duty use. Doesn
| 't matter _how_ they accomplish that. Maybe they _can 't_
| accomplish that, with positive margins, at a price point
| anyone is willing to buy, at first. Oh well. Keep trying.
|
| Compare/contrast: FDA stage-3 drug trials -- the trial
| phase that tests drug efficacy. It's up to the drug's
| manufacturer to declare to the FDA what _effect_ the drug
| is supposed to have -- it 's the very same effect the
| company is applying to the FDA to be able to _market_ the
| drug as having. An efficacy trial, is simply the FDA
| demanding, from a drug 's manufacturer, proof positive of
| its own planned marketing claims about the drug. That
| efficacy proof uses metrics specific to the pathology
| that the drug treats -- and likely metrics invented by
| the drug manufacturer themselves, while researching the
| problem. But crucially, the manufacturer, before even
| starting the trial, has to convince the FDA that _these
| metrics_ are sensible ones to measure efficacy by; and
| also has to work with the FDA to reach a consensus on
| what would constitute a satisfactory level of efficacy
| for their drug (i.e. what metrics thresholds are meant by
| a marketing claim like "relieves headaches.")
| ultrarunner wrote:
| If the industry is already able to determine quality, how
| do you propose to wrest that design process--
| enforceably, and without destroying value-- and place it
| in the hands of aging politicians? The FDA example is a
| good one, with complaints like American sunscreen and
| toothpaste being subpar, and amid news that Phenylephrine
| is effectively a placebo (and was not the manufacturers'
| first choice).
|
| Would I enjoy high quality items? As someone shopping for
| a new toaster after ours simply stopped working (and
| after allowing my son to disassemble it both impressed
| and appalled at its design), in a word, yes! I suspect,
| however, that attempting to centrally plan quality would
| merely achieve a lower standard of living for most
| people. Telling the average person "you're not allowed to
| buy that because we deemed it to not be high enough
| quality (trust us)" and following up with "Oh well" seems
| well meaning but, respectfully, out of touch.
| derefr wrote:
| > I suspect, however, that attempting to centrally plan
| quality would merely achieve a lower standard of living
| for most people.
|
| My feeling is different, and comes from an intuition
| about capitalism:
|
| * Companies will make money the easiest way that they
| can, with regard for any kind of unenforced "code of
| ethics" being a path-dependent rarity, rather than
| something common.
|
| * But companies _do_ have the internal talent to solve
| problems in more challenging, constrained, and ultimately
| useful /ethical ways, _if_ they 're simply prevented
| (through regulation) from choosing the "easy way out."
|
| If you allow a game studio to put slot machines in front
| of children, then that's what they're going to do to
| maximize ROI. If you _don 't_ permit them to do that,
| then the market demand for "games" is still going to
| drive them -- or at least, one of their competitors -- to
| ship some actual video games that are fun-qua-fun rather
| than being addictive and money-sucking.
|
| If you allow a drug manufacturer to make an "anti-colic"
| baby formula that contains heroin, then that's what
| they're going to do. (And did! The early 1900s were
| wild!) If you prevent them from doing that, then the
| demand that still exists is going to force them [or one
| of their competitors] to put some research into how to
| actually address colic _without_ just effectively putting
| the kids in a coma. And someone 's going to figure it
| out.
|
| If you let companies sell asbestos insulation, then
| that'd be what they'd do -- it's the cheapest insulation
| to manufacture, and so it'd also be the cheapest
| insulation to buy if it were on the market. If you
| prevent them from doing that, then they'll have to get
| off their asses and innovate up a cheaper form of non-
| asbestosis-causing insulation.
|
| I don't see why "you can't market this as a 'lawnmower'
| if it shakes itself apart after eight months; try again"
| is all that different from "you can't market this as
| 'building insulation' if it destroys your lungs; try
| again." In both cases, I'd expect the continued market
| demand + supply-side talent-base to come together to
| solve the problem a better way.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| >Sacrificial parts that are designed to fail in order to
| mitigate a more serious failure do not count for the
| purposes of this request -- that's just Good Engineering
| Practice.
|
| Except when that part breaks and the company does not
| make replacements available and the product was not meant
| to be taken apart to replace it. Mechanical fuses only
| work when you can easily buy and replace the mechanical
| fuse and ALSO fix whatever caused the failure in the
| first place. Otherwise it's just a weak link.
| HeyLaughingBoy wrote:
| Yes, but.
|
| That designed-in weak link that you can't fix could be
| the difference between you being pissed off because your
| machine doesn't work anymore and you losing a hand.
| winrid wrote:
| That's just not the thought process. A vacuum with a
| cheap motor isn't going to have trouble hurting your
| fingers if you stick them in the brush at the right
| angle. But the bearings will wear out in 5 years.
|
| Another is drills with cheap housings or gears. The drill
| will happily rip a glove off and de-skin you. But it'll
| still wear out faster than if it had metal gears or a
| tougher housing.
|
| Usually safety is an _expense_. Extra sensors, very
| carefully engineered weak links that suddenly break under
| load.
|
| Another counter example to your point is my automated
| litter box. It has a pinch sensor for safety reasons,
| which is made of two metal contacts. This sensor is
| directly above the pee/poop so it corrodes and I have to
| take out like 20 screws in a machine filled with poop to
| fix it, like every year. They could just have added a
| plastic cover and one screw to protect the contacts, but
| no.
|
| Probably the only thing I can think of to support your
| argument is cars. The front end of a car is plastic and
| metal designed to absorb energy in an impact. But
| household stuff...
| kortex wrote:
| I owned a treadmill (second-hand, details long forgotten,
| sorry) which had two long steel rails (running the length
| of the machine) for the main structure. The brackets
| which connected the rails on the front side were steel,
| but the ones on the back of the machine were inexplicably
| plastic. There were major load paths (cyclical loading
| from running) going straight through these brackets to
| the feet. Between the wear and plastic embrittlement,
| these parts were the first to fail, and the entire rest
| of the machine was in decent condition (easily years of
| life left).
|
| There was nothing particularly complex about that part,
| they could have easily used steel brackets. I can't help
| but feel like it was designed for a specific lifespan.
| aubanel wrote:
| The father of a friend worked at a high position at
| Canon. For a specific enterprise command, the client
| company wanted printers with a lifetime 20,000 copies
| instead of the base 10,000. Canon went "no problem, we'll
| see with our engineers" and actually they only had to
| remove a small device which was basically a print counter
| and would artificially block the ink input at approx
| 10,000 copies. So nothing to do with good engineering,
| only bad business practices.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _so called "representatives" who place corporate
| interests over small businesses and citizens_
|
| California farmers have more influence in Sacramento than
| John Deere. Either they didn't engage in this fight. Or
| there is a reason they would want this exempted.
| maerF0x0 wrote:
| And every time the citizenry tries to use regulation to
| reign in a megacorp it ends up creating more burden for
| that company's competition. megacorps legal team can
| easily squeeze into the loop holes, but mom and pops (and
| entrepreneurs) get ground up like cheap meat.
| pc86 wrote:
| Then exceptions (if any exist) should be based on company
| revenue (to include any and all holding companies), not
| what the tool or device does.
|
| Require Deere to make RTR easily available, let small
| upstarts focus on the product
| maerF0x0 wrote:
| So I definitely prefer this, and this is used to be a
| sort of unspoken rule in Canadian law. The law just had
| this bias built into for the "little guy" in the fight.
| Seems to have changed under the current Fuhrer, at least
| from a non-resident's perspective. IMO that's the right
| bias to have to counter the matthew effect in Capitalism.
| salawat wrote:
| So, it applies to basically nothing at all important that
| wasn't already covered in one way shape or form?
|
| Hell, the last paragraph on the alarm bits basically opens
| the door so damn wide, this moght as well have not even been
| drafted.
| MetaWhirledPeas wrote:
| > Lawn, garden, golf course, landscaping, or grounds
| maintenance
|
| Tim Cook: _And one more thing... iPhone 16 can control your
| lawn mower!_
| lesuorac wrote:
| I mean iPhones (and other phones) have apps that help you
| identify weeds and the like.
|
| Don't iPhones have that earthquake detection as well so
| they might as well be an alarm device.
| mdgrech23 wrote:
| This country has become such an effing joke. This story of
| exceptions for big companies and the rich repeats itself over
| and over.
| derefr wrote:
| To me, it'd make sense in theory to carve out these
| exceptions even _without_ a lobbyist asking for them: it 'd
| make for a bill that gets immediately passed rather than
| endlessly argued about and shot down, because a bill _with_
| these exceptions has nobody on the other side of it pushing
| back. And that could just be the first step; you could then
| do a series of smaller bills (or better yet, riders to must-
| pass bills) that each try to knock out one of these
| exceptions.
|
| In practice, though, I feel like the exemptions here will be
| interpreted as part of the "spirit of the bill" rather than
| examples of realpolitik expediency...
| johnday wrote:
| Without trying to defend this particular carve-out, I would
| suggest that things like computers and video game consoles are
| improving in capability over a much faster time scale than TVs
| and video cameras. Hence there is much less of an expectation
| of longevity / relevance than with other tech goods.
|
| That said, the same argument could be made for mobile phones as
| well, so it's clearly spurious.
| InSteady wrote:
| >Hence there is much less of an expectation of longevity /
| relevance than with other tech goods.
|
| These kinds of arguments are hollow. Especially in gaming, if
| you make a good console with good games, people will want to
| hang on to them and play them for literally decades. But even
| ignoring that specific aspect of gaming culture, it really
| should not be up to some top-down, self-serving analysis
| about what most consumers should expect. Otherwise it's just
| a race to making the least consumer-friendly product so you
| can make legal/political arguments about consumers obviously
| want to buy expensive garbage which they expect to break
| beyond repair in a few years at best.
| KptMarchewa wrote:
| That argument made sense 10 years ago, but since then we've
| seen a lot of slowdown in computers, consoles and mobile
| phone progress, while TVs have overcome the LCD slump.
|
| The value difference between 10 year old console (PS4!) and
| new one, can be smaller than 10 year old LCD vs new OLED.
| mcpackieh wrote:
| This is absolutely true when you look at hardware from
| today vs 10 years ago, then do the same comparison between
| the 90s and 80s or even 00s and 90s. People are playing
| basically the same manner of game now and 10 years ago, but
| between the 80s and 90s there was radical change in
| technology in a way that shaped the development of entirely
| new video game genres. Video game development since about
| the early to mid 00s has been mostly a matter of
| refinement, very little has been truly revolutionary.
| inetknght wrote:
| > > _Without trying to defend this particular carve-out, I
| would suggest that things like computers and video game
| consoles are improving in capability over a much faster
| time scale than TVs and video cameras. Hence there is much
| less of an expectation of longevity / relevance than with
| other tech goods._
|
| I disagree with your point, but I'll reply to this one:
|
| > _That argument made sense 10 years ago, but since then we
| 've seen a lot of slowdown in computers, consoles and
| mobile phone progress_
|
| That argument doesn't made even less sense 10 years ago in
| my opinion. When things are moving fastest (eg, most
| profitable) is when parts must be made available for
| consumers to repair themselves. When things are moving
| slower, then the IP/schematics should absolutely be
| provided if nobody is willing to make the parts.
| anonymousab wrote:
| Video game console gens last longer and have continued
| software support for longer than Android phones.
| inetknght wrote:
| Honestly though: how long something lasts shouldn't
| matter, companies should still be forced to provide
| support for things they sell, or else to provide their
| IP/schematics so that other people can support the trash
| that was sold.
| Kirby64 wrote:
| It makes less sense. Video game consoles typically run 5-10
| year cycles. If anything, supporting repair on them should be
| easier, because you can play the same games on the console at
| very first release as you can on the console sold right
| before they discontinue them. PCs and phones get updates
| yearly, and a 10 year old PC certainly can't play the same
| games as a brand new one.
| bombcar wrote:
| Speaking of video game consoles I remember finding out that
| Nintendo would still "repair" a GameCube without composite out
| into one with it for years and years after the GameCube was not
| sold new.
| hermannj314 wrote:
| I dont want to start a war with any right-to-repair purists,
| but I do think in lieu of offering 7 years of parts a company
| that makes reasonable low-cost (or free) replacement a simple
| request for 7 years would also be meeting the needs of most
| consumers. And a lot of video game consoles have very liberal
| policies already toward this regard.
|
| Some products are significantly cheaper to replace than
| repair, even if they cost more than $99.
| ncallaway wrote:
| my only concern with this exception is it creates a
| monopoly, which then needs to be carefully regulated at
| multiple levels.
|
| Yes, we can regulate the price, but if only the original
| vendor can perform repairs we might also need to regulate
| quality and timeliness (similar to how lemon laws for cars
| often specificy a maximum number of repair attempts, or
| hours away from the owner for repairs, before the vehicle
| must be refunded).
|
| I think it's an okay approach, but I also think it requires
| a heavier hand from the government, and from ongoing
| oversight, than letting the market figure out reasonable
| rates for a repair.
| bombcar wrote:
| ALL of these various "consumer protection" laws can be
| gamed by the biggest players, so they have to carefully
| vetted before they go live.
|
| Basing them on the already-existing protections around
| the auto industry is probably a decent place to start.
| bombcar wrote:
| A defined "support period" with relatively bounded costs is
| all we really need, I agree.
|
| Knowing that if I buy a technology product that is more
| than $100, it will either work for 5 years (or whatever) or
| be repairable for some fraction of the original cost, would
| make me satisfied.
| JohnFen wrote:
| I think it says a lot about the terrible state of things that
| such mild and inadequate legislation as this can be
| characterized as "the strongest yet".
|
| Don't get me wrong, any progress is good, but this is, at best,
| a very tiny baby step.
| tomhallett wrote:
| I'm wondering if it was a carve out that was easy to give,
| doesn't water it down too much and is helpful for other
| politics:
|
| * Sony produces semi-conductors and movies (Sony Pictures,
| Columbia, Tristar)
|
| * Microsoft is big in enterprise cloud (ie: government)
|
| * the impact of people being forced to upgrade their phone
| because they can't fix it, is probably larger than people being
| forced to upgrade their game system because they can't fix it
|
| Note: I 100% agree with you. I see video games as the same as
| all other consumer electronics which were included, but I can
| see if Sony/Microsoft came complaining, it's a good bargaining
| chip/favor for other initiatives.
| bluejekyll wrote:
| I'm actually more surprised that they didn't cave to Apple.
| In either direction. Apple should have been kicking and
| screaming to have no exemptions.
|
| Alternatively, the iPhone and AppleTV, and all their
| computers will now be redefined as gaming consoles (which
| honestly, what's the technical difference)
| xethos wrote:
| The trillion dollar behemoth famous for having few models
| can afford to stock parts for seven years. Can Motorola, or
| the smartphone or laptop arm of Lenovo (industries with
| famously low margins) justify staying in the space and
| competing with Apple?
| joking wrote:
| Why would Apple complain? You can repair a phone screen as
| long as you pay 50% off the price of the original phone. As
| long as they control the supply of components and are able
| to price them as they wise, it's a win win for them. The
| difference between Apple and any other phone, is that Apple
| has maybe 15 different models to support that each one has
| been sold by millions of units, meanwhile there are
| thousands of different android phone models.
| shaftway wrote:
| > which honestly, what's the technical difference
|
| According to the Tetris movie, it's that they don't have a
| keyboard and they are expected to stay in one spot.
| BLanen wrote:
| Carving that exemption out afterwards seems easier now too.
| grecy wrote:
| > _got a nice re-election contribution_
|
| It's bribery. They were paid a Bribe. Use the word.
| [deleted]
| FloatArtifact wrote:
| I cannot emphasize this enough. It does not force manufacturers
| to provide individual parts. What does this mean? Considered the
| following scenarios.
|
| Key Currently: state of average repair Repairability: the ideal
| method to repair
|
| - Replace the keyboard on the laptop Reality: Purchase the
| keyboard/top cover assembly Repairability: purchase keyboard only
|
| - Broken cable to usb daughter board Reality: purchase data board
| assembly to obtain cable. Repairability: purchase daughter board
| cable.
|
| - Motherboard no longer charges battery Current: replace
| motherboard Repairability: replace capacitors utilizing
| schematics
|
| - Faulty Mac magnetic sleep sensor Reality: Go through "genius
| bar" to replace assembly Repairability: purchase sleep sensor,
| pair/calibrate with to macbook serial number because many of
| their parts are serialized.
|
| Summary do we have access to following?
|
| - Schematics and documentation - OEM software working with
| serialized parts and calibration - Individual parts and
| components not just assemblies. Cables are a great example.
|
| Not all of these scenarios the end user can do easily however,
| independence pair shops can with a proper support.
| j16sdiz wrote:
| > - Motherboard no longer charges battery Current: replace
| motherboard Repairability: replace capacitors utilizing
| schematics
|
| Some marginally related remarks:
|
| Most faulty capacitors were manufactured around 2000s ( see
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitor_plague ). Those days
| are long gone. Most battery charging issue now are unrelated to
| capacitor .
|
| l
| FloatArtifact wrote:
| > > - Motherboard no longer charges battery Current: replace
| motherboard Repairability: replace capacitors utilizing
| schematics
|
| > Some marginally related remarks:
|
| > Most faulty capacitors were manufactured around 2000s ( see
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitor_plague ). Those
| days are long gone. Most battery charging issue now are
| unrelated to capacitor .
|
| > l
|
| While that's true the point still stands that we don't have
| access to supply chain parts to fix reparable charging
| issues.
| passwordoops wrote:
| Used to work in Europe for a CA based company. Every tender
| required _at least_ 7 years of support, sometimes 10, including
| all parts. Good to see them catching up
| robertlagrant wrote:
| > Used to work in Europe for a CA based company. Every tender
| required at least 7 years of support, sometimes 10, including
| all parts. Good to see them catching up
|
| This is for consumer goods. It's not the same. Consumers could
| always decide to only buy things with 7 years of support, like
| your tender process.
|
| The "catching up" nonsense isn't great either.
| solardev wrote:
| What's a tender and why does it need 7 years of support?
| varjag wrote:
| A bidding process.
|
| In certain industries life cycle requirements are common
| (e.g. our customers expect 15 to 20 years of product
| lifetime) but it is far from universal and isn't enforced by
| a EU wide law AFAIK.
| bombcar wrote:
| Yep - if you're a business wanting to buy a million dollar
| machine to do whatever, you want some assurance that it can
| be repaired and will be working until replacement time (at
| least the depreciation schedule, often many MANY years
| longer).
| solardev wrote:
| That's amazing. I'm happy when my npm packages last more
| than 2 months
| bombcar wrote:
| Physical things have interesting support - there are
| actually companies whose entire business model is support
| equipment from companies that have been gone 40+ years.
| HeyLaughingBoy wrote:
| Right. My little cottage industry/side gig used to build
| electronic boards that were used to interface 40+ year
| old machine tools to modern controls when the original
| controllers broke and replacements weren't available. I
| sold to a small company that did nothing but retrofits
| like that.
|
| Really wish I could find more niches like this. It's a
| boring but profitable domain to get into.
| HeyLaughingBoy wrote:
| Yup. At my last job, we designed our products (medical
| instruments) for a service life of 15 years and a market
| lifetime of 25. i.e., from the time the product was
| released to the market, you could expect Service and
| Support and spare parts to be available for at least 25
| years and the device itself was expected to last 15 years
| in the field.
|
| Of course, I'm talking about large machines that cost
| between $500k - $1M each, so...
| gryzzly wrote:
| 7 years is nothing. This is the best we can do, people are
| doomed.
| mcpackieh wrote:
| I agree, 7 years should be in the flat plateau of most
| product's bathtub curves, before most things start failing and
| consequently need spare parts in the first place. 15 years
| would be a lot more meaningful, but it really depends on the
| type of product in question.
| cm2012 wrote:
| Prediction: the vast majority of people will be unhappy with the
| results of this bill in 5 years.
| pembrook wrote:
| You can always spot an emotionally-driven law (as opposed to
| one driven by logic) by the fact that it requires carve-outs
| for 75 different edge cases to be passable.
|
| Critics will call this the work of "special interests," but
| this means the law itself was actually passed to please a
| special interest group.
|
| If we can agree that's it's a dumb law under that many
| different scenarios -- then it's not a good piece of
| legislation.
| throwaway914 wrote:
| I'm not a lawyer. Would this make it harder to invoke
| California's Songs-Beverly Act for device replacement?
| (California's Lemon Law)
|
| Previously, you could buy an appliance >$100 and if it broke in
| 5-7 years you could ask for service or parts to repair it. If the
| company cannot produce that, they would be required by law to
| replace the "thing" with an equivalent or newer product. This
| looks like the 7 year requirement is on things still being sold.
|
| If companies must retain 7 years of parts now, this kinda closes
| the loop on getting new stuff in a Planned Obsolescence world. :p
|
| I'll happily take a win for Right to Repair.
| ZoomerCretin wrote:
| https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...
|
| (k) This section shall not apply if the manufacturer provides
| an equivalent or better, readily available replacement
| electronic or appliance product at no charge to the customer.
| throwaway914 wrote:
| Before this, you could take advantage of their poor planning
| and not keeping parts or offering repair service. Now they're
| required by law - as long as the product is still being sold.
|
| I liked getting new stuff freely :-)
| hanniabu wrote:
| As with most regulation, what matters most is what are the
| consequences if they don't follow? If it's just a slap on the
| wrist then it'll be more cost effective for them to just eat the
| penalty than pay to have a surplus of supply manufactured then
| stored for years.
| uconnectlol wrote:
| that could be great now how do i make it so i don't need an OS
| and software in my laundry machine
|
| or any of the other elephants in the room
| Joker_vD wrote:
| [flagged]
| rascul wrote:
| Calif. is one way to abbreviate California.
| Joker_vD wrote:
| Oops, I missed the dot after the "f". The title makes sense
| now, thank you.
|
| Edit: although that's probably the first time I've seen this
| abbreviation, it's always either "Cal." or "CA".
| whartung wrote:
| From the bill: above-described electronic or
| appliance product,
|
| So that means that this is just for electronics and appliances,
| not vehicles, or anything that's not "electronic or appliance
| product".
|
| And that means that I will not be able to get a service manual
| from BMW for my motorcycle, just like I can't today.
|
| Just want to point that detail out.
| ravenstine wrote:
| This just seems like a new moat the big companies have dug to
| discourage small companies from breaking into the hardware
| industry. If this was about the right to repair, then the bill
| would have been about releasing schematics and preventing anti-
| repair designs (like the Hall-effect sensor in Macbooks that
| includes a circuit with the sole purpose of preventing third-
| party replacement). In actuality, this is against the little guy
| in two ways; the purpose of forcing repair shops to disclose
| their use of "unauthorized" parts can only serve to try to
| discredit them in the eyes of the public. The public just wants
| their devices to work, but now California wants to scare them
| with this idea of "unauthorized" parts.
| ecf wrote:
| Big companies aren't asking for this. Start pointing blame to
| the consumers who ask for something without realizing the
| consequences.
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| why would a big company dig this moat?
|
| (they're already big, which is _the_ moat, since they likely
| have excellent tech to have become big)
| red-iron-pine wrote:
| to discourage small companies from breaking into the hardware
| industry.
|
| said so right in the first sentence.
|
| make it hard for them to get off the ground and either copy
| it yourself, or buy them out when they're still small.
| turtleyacht wrote:
| Made me think of this in the accounting chapter of an aged
| textbook:
|
| ---
|
| For decades companies that stockpile old goods have been "writing
| down" the value of their inventories. Using the accepted
| principle of evaluating inventory at the lower of two figures--
| current market price or the cost to produce--they sharply
| depreciate the stock to reflect the slow movement of dated parts
| that may never be sold. (...) the Supreme Court ruled...
| unless... actually scrapped or offered for sale at the reduced
| price, write-downs are... illegal.
|
| The Supreme Court Decision in the case of _Thor Power Tool Co.
| vs. IRS_ meant that Thor had either to sell or scrap its devalued
| parts or to revalue its inventory and pay back taxes on the basis
| of new valuation... accountants advised clients to take no
| action, and the American Institute of Certified Public
| Accountants notified members that they need not advise clients to
| seek permission to conform to the Thor Power Tool decision.
|
| The IRS then shocked the accounting community... all improperly
| devalued inventory still on hand would need to be scrapped or
| revalued and back taxes paid.1
|
| 1 Jerry Giesel, "Product Liability Suits Jump in '80, Court
| Report Says," _Business Insurance,_ October 6, 1980, p. 1.
|
| -- _Business Today_ 3e (1982). Random House, Inc.
| smugma wrote:
| The IRS largely operates on a cash, not accounting/accrual,
| basis.
|
| Companies still can and do write down inventories all the time.
| It's just that it doesn't help with the IRS.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-09-14 23:02 UTC)