[HN Gopher] Gov. Polis Signs Bill Mandating That Consumers Have ...
___________________________________________________________________
Gov. Polis Signs Bill Mandating That Consumers Have Options to Fix
Electronics
Author : rmason
Score : 410 points
Date : 2024-05-29 20:17 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (coloradotimesrecorder.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (coloradotimesrecorder.com)
| Multicomp wrote:
| I was wondering if this would be carved up with exceptions, but
| it's actually rather strong comparable to what state laws we have
| had so far per [1]
|
| > Like the repair rules passed in Minnesota last year, Colorado's
| law notably covers data center and business-to-business
| equipment, only without Minnesota's vague exclusion for "critical
| infrastructure" equipment.
|
| > There are some exclusions, like game consoles (due to lobbying
| from game console manufacturers over piracy concerns), medical
| devices, ATVs, and motor vehicles, which are also typical for
| repair rules introduced in other states like California and New
| York. Like Oregon's right-to-repair law, Colorado's HB24-1121
| explicitly prohibits electronics manufacturers from using "parts
| pairing" to prevent replacement components from working unless
| approved by company software.
|
| [1] https://www.theverge.com/2024/5/29/24166894/colorado-
| right-t...
| bberenberg wrote:
| So what does this mean for Apple devices? They will have to
| back away from pairing? If yes, then it should work everywhere?
| Or will they agree to pay whatever fines in CO to avoid
| changing this elsewhere? Is there another option I should be
| thinking about?
| g_p wrote:
| My guess is they will retain "parts pairing" from a technical
| perspective, but frame it as an anti theft measure, and focus
| on preventing use of stolen device parts.
|
| Perhaps they'll relax the restrictions on "non first party"
| components (likely you'll lose some functionality that
| aftermarket parts don't actually support), but use pairing to
| lock out parts from stolen phones.
|
| I suspect that part of their strategy is to try to make
| stolen iPhones less attractive to thieves, and effective
| parts pairing would likely reduce the market for stolen
| phones stripped for parts.
|
| Of course, if you can "blank" off a stolen part to appear as
| an unofficial one, that doesn't work! That idea is therefore
| likely to face challenges.
|
| The challenge will be what is really meant by parts pairing -
| to some extent if you want to do some features securely (say
| touch ID), you probably want to pair the reader to the secure
| enclave with a shared AES key and similar. There could be
| tooling to reset and re-establish that pairing on an unlocked
| device.
|
| Legislation often struggles to define exactly what is
| required though, so it will certainly be interesting to see
| how Apple responds.
| bigstrat2003 wrote:
| > My guess is they will retain "parts pairing" from a
| technical perspective, but frame it as an anti theft
| measure, and focus on preventing use of stolen device
| parts.
|
| Isn't that just what they already do? Apple has
| consistently framed the parts pairing as being about theft
| deterrence. I don't believe them for a second (and nor
| should anyone), but that is certainly what they claim.
| mozman wrote:
| They also use the United States Customs to seize repair
| part shipments to undermine independent repair
| operations. Louis Rossman has some excellent videos on
| this.
| willseth wrote:
| What do you believe then?
| freedomben wrote:
| I'm not GP, but I agree entirely with them. I believe
| apple is doing it to maximize the value of official
| parts, and to make it as hard as possible for people to
| do self-repairs and for third party shops to do repairs.
| They want you fully in their walled garden, and that
| includes their retail stores.
|
| I don't doubt at all that they see the theft deterrence
| as a significant benefit. I wouldn't even doubt that
| internally they justify many of their actions based on
| theft deterrence.
|
| However, if it was only about theft deterrence, I would
| expect to see some things be a little bit different. If
| they actually supported customers repairing their
| devices, or third-party stores, there would be
| differences in how they approach this. We have plenty of
| history of Apple's behavior to know how they feel about
| self-repair and third-party stores, without even
| considering the theft deterrent actions.
|
| How utterly and incredibly serendipitous for Apple, that
| they are able to solve the problem of theft, and it just
| so happens to also accomplish a ton of their other goals
| that they have been working on for a long time!
| willseth wrote:
| This is pretty vague. You claim there would be
| "differences" if it were actually about theft deterrence
| and that it accomplishes "a ton of other goals" but don't
| give an example.
|
| The problem with most of the theories about Apple having
| ulterior motives about parts pairing is that there's no
| evidence that parts sales are even a blip on their
| revenue, not to mention a profit center. I have trouble
| imagining what those motives might be besides securing
| devices and restricting use of black market parts.
| Y_Y wrote:
| Fine let me take my phone to the official store, do some
| authentication and let them give that configuration of
| components the stamp of approval. That way they know that I
| am aware of all the parts that comprise my phone and want
| them to work. If some component turns out to originate from
| a phone that was reported stolen then fine, it's not part
| of their remit to act on that and not my problem either,
| assuming I bought it fair and square. (Assuming common law
| or similar, ymmv)
| nomel wrote:
| > assuming I bought it fair and square
|
| Depends on here you live. In some places, buying stolen
| parts is illegal. In those places, they would probably
| have a defense, since it would not be "fair and square".
| ThrustVectoring wrote:
| Under the law, the rightful owner of stolen property can
| demand its return. If it's currently installed in your
| phone, that's your problem, even if you bought it "fair
| and square" - that just gives you a claim on the merchant
| who sold you stolen goods.
|
| The exception to this is currency: if you're fairly paid
| with stolen money, you get to keep the money, regardless
| of whether the rightful owner is able to proof that it
| was originally theirs and stolen.
| Y_Y wrote:
| Which law is that now? As I'm sure an expert like you
| knows, this will vary by jurisdiction.
|
| The fact that somebody may take a replevin claim against
| me because the digitizer in my phone was removed from
| their stolen phone does not, imho, have any bearing on
| Apple's rights and responsibilities with regard to me as
| a customer.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| > As I'm sure an expert like you knows
|
| Sigh. You're both making claims that could be different
| between jurisdictions. If you don't know that, then you
| should probably stop now.
| ThrustVectoring wrote:
| Friend, _you_ were the one who assumed "common law or
| similar". This is _ancient_ common law precedent from
| England.
| willseth wrote:
| Not sure what fair and square means wrt buying stolen
| property. In most cases you would lose possession of it,
| in some cases you're actually criminally liable.
| Y_Y wrote:
| I'm referring to the concept also known as "bona fide
| purchaser"
| willseth wrote:
| Bona fide purchaser is a rare exception that seems like
| it would never apply to stolen iPhone parts.
| paulmd wrote:
| there's no "maybe" about it, people forget that this was
| legislatively mandated at the time, and considered a
| positive step to prevent muggings and phone theft (which
| were _drastically_ reduced by these measures). And this was
| actually done over the objections of the tech industry at
| the time.
|
| https://www.techlicious.com/blog/call-for-kill-switch-to-
| dea...
|
| https://www.cnn.com/2013/11/20/tech/mobile/smartphone-
| kill-s...
|
| https://www.pcmag.com/news/cell-phone-kill-switches-
| prompt-d...
| Nifty3929 wrote:
| I assume they will just price their repair parts accordingly.
| Maybe this will drive 3rd party development of compatible
| parts, and then consumers will decide to pay for the Apple
| OEM part or the knock-off.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| Apple has already announced they are killing parts pairing as
| it is currently implemented. They will, however, block the
| use of parts which came from a parent device marked as
| stolen.
|
| https://www.macrumors.com/2024/04/11/apple-to-allow-used-
| par...
| dumbo-octopus wrote:
| This makes perfect sense and is a Good and Right thing to
| do. It properly devalues stolen goods while allowing a
| third party repair shop industry to exist that purchases
| "for parts" broken devices from some users and more cheaply
| repairs others' using said parts.
|
| The main thing potentially missing is there has to be a way
| that the shop can verify the given device's parts are not
| marked stolen prior to purchasing it "for parts"...
| batch12 wrote:
| That seems like a hard problem for a phone that won't
| boot. You'd only be able to verify the device's serial
| from the labels. To validate each component you'd have to
| take the device apart.
| SkyPuncher wrote:
| That seems like a completely reasonable trade off. Phones
| that don't boot are pretty much worthless right now
| anyways.
| freeone3000 wrote:
| Stolen phones are blacklisted by serial and IMEI2, so the
| label will cover the vast majority of cases (unless
| they're putting stolen parts inside of a legitimately
| purchased case...?)
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| > unless they're putting stolen parts inside of a
| legitimately purchased case...?
|
| Which they have no reason to do unless the device is
| functional (and then the parts could be identified in
| software), because they could just as easily fill a non-
| functional device with cat litter or old newspapers
| instead of going through the trouble of sourcing
| functional stolen parts.
| j-bos wrote:
| What's the reasoning for excluding motor vehicles when
| aftermarket mods have always been a staple of car culture?
| tbeseda wrote:
| Maybe safety. But also CO is a pretty high emissions state at
| the moment and many mods can contribute to that.
| patrick451 wrote:
| One of the many drawbacks of EVs is their lack of repair-
| ability and modability compared to ICE counterparts. This
| bill could be been an good way to change that.
| throwaway48476 wrote:
| EV's are mechanically much simpler that ICE and need less
| repair. The problem is all the computers which is really
| an all modern cars problem people blame on EV's.
| smolder wrote:
| I think you nailed it. The voting population generally
| disapproves of 'car culture'. Foolish trends like removing
| catalytic converters and running super loud exhausts for
| single digit horsepower gains or hooning on public roads
| don't do its image any favors. But the most basic reason is
| just that the industry lobby that wants to lock down cars is
| much stronger than the independent/shade tree mechanic lobby
| that doesn't.
| pooper wrote:
| > Foolish trends like removing catalytic converters and
| running super loud exhausts for single digit horsepower
| gains or hooning on public roads don't do its image any
| favors.
|
| And there is so much more. One of my pet peeves was idiots
| lifting their trucks but doing nothing with their
| headlights or worse getting "brighter" headlights. It is
| possible to be stuck in traffic and be practically blinded
| by the truck behind you in your mirrors.
| vmladenov wrote:
| This kind of behavior is why I have no problem with
| manufacturers moving towards digital camera-based
| sideview mirrors. Plenty of experience being blinded
| especially at night, very grateful for the "flip up"
| trick on the rearview that cuts brightness.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| I like to adjust the side mirrors so that the excessive
| light from the car behind me is reflected back at them.
| Sometimes, they get the hint.
| consp wrote:
| > "brighter" headlights
|
| Don't worry, the Chinese got this trend covered with the
| 1000000 lumen headlights (actually producing about 1000
| which is far less than the normal 1500).
| 20after4 wrote:
| Even worse when they replace the lights with LEDs that
| are brighter than the sun and color balanced heavily into
| the blue area of the spectrum.
| userbinator wrote:
| Maybe there's already sufficient laws in place (due to the
| car culture) to not need an overlap?
| bonestamp2 wrote:
| Agreed. There's already a lot of legislation around
| automotive (and it's pretty good) so maybe they wanted to
| steer clear of that to avoid legal conflicts with other
| state's laws. The dealer lobby is also particularly
| litigious, so perhaps they want to avoid going down that
| path when it's not really necessary at this time.
| badosu wrote:
| John Deere maybe?
| JoshTriplett wrote:
| Car dealerships are a _massive_ lobbying /influence group in
| local politics.
| throwaway48476 wrote:
| Some car dealerships are actually bigger and have higher
| profits than manufacturers. It's wild.
| mozman wrote:
| Medical devices and aircraft are the only legitimate exceptions
| - everything else should be repairable.
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| Medical devices and aircraft should NEVER be the exemptions.
|
| Those are two category of product that have one of the
| longest lives of consumer goods, and have serious external
| guardrails and regulations around their safety.
|
| There are MANY 50 year old aircraft flying around still, the
| average GA fleet age is 35+. Part of that is that replacement
| parts are approved by the FAA, and not the OEM. If the FAA
| says I can use an Garmin transponder in my Cessna, Cessna
| can't brick my plane even if they have a deal with Icom.
| There are still aftermarket parts being sold for models that
| were discontinued in the 1950s. Imagine if we had to throw
| away every old airplane when the manufacturer went bust.
|
| Medical devices are the same, if a third party manufacturer
| is selling an FDA approved replacement battery for an older
| hearing aid, I would be pissed if the manufacturer bricked my
| device for not using their battery. Or even worse, how mad
| would you be if the original manufacturer, and the secret
| signing key for their batteries, went out of business and you
| didn't even have the option of an expensive OEM battery.
| Supermancho wrote:
| > Medical devices and aircraft should NEVER be the
| exemptions.
|
| > "if a third party manufacturer is selling an FDA approved
| replacement battery for an older hearing aid,"
|
| The FDA and FAA are massive bureaucracies that are not
| going to get into the business of regulating electronics.
| Practically, medical devices and aircraft should be exempt,
| as things are today. Suggesting legislation should be
| written otherwise, is negligent at best and malicious at
| worst.
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| > The FDA and FAA are massive bureaucracies that are not
| going to get into the business of regulating electronics
|
| The FAA has been in the business of regulating
| electronics for more than half a century. They are also
| in the business of certifying that replacement parts meet
| the same standards even when not endorsed by the
| manufacturer. There is a reason that a 1970 Cessna can
| have a modern avionics suite.
| zamalek wrote:
| Medical devices include the likes of x-ray machines. I
| don't think I would relish the idea of my dentist saving a
| buck on maintainance and calibration. I think a more
| precise follow-up bill that covers things that aren't life
| threatening (like hearing aids) would be more appropriate.
| pooper wrote:
| I'm pretty sure malpractice insurance would love to not
| pay the doctor if they are caught doing anything like
| this. That threat alone would prevent doctors from doing
| stupid things.
| ssl-3 wrote:
| Would the availability of such things as documented,
| published, manufacturer-supplied methods for maintenance
| and calibration of dental x-ray machines increase the
| likelihood of your dentist trying to save a buck on these
| tasks, compared to the unavailability of these things?
|
| Why, or why not?
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| Forcing an x-ray to be serviceable is not the same as
| making it legal for an amateur serviced machine to be
| used.
|
| There are also all sorts of existing legal remedies for
| things like this. If you blast someone with x-rays
| through negligence like letting an amateur fiddle with
| the x-ray machine, you will have some serious legal
| issues regardless of whether or not the OEM is legally
| required to sell replacement parts.
|
| You can have one law that says that medical machines must
| be repairable, and then you can have another law that
| says that medical machine repairers must be trained, or
| that repairs have to be inspected.
|
| This is already a common thing in life or death services,
| yeah, anyone can do the work to wire their own house
| (since its an open standard), but that doesn't mean that
| a qualified electrician and inspector doesn't have to put
| their names that the work has been done to a safe
| standard.
| ghaff wrote:
| >anyone can do the work to wire their own house (since
| its an open standard), but that doesn't mean that a
| qualified electrician and inspector doesn't have to put
| their names that the work has been done to a safe
| standard
|
| That is not universally true in the US--and is probably
| widely ignored even in jurisdictions where it is
| theoretically true.
| buildsjets wrote:
| To heck with that. My right to reverse engineer and fabricate
| parts for an airplane that I own is ALREADY enshrined in
| federal law, and our aviation user groups are funded and
| motivated to protect this privilege. It is as applicable to
| American Airlines (they have used it, for example, to produce
| replacement MD-80 tailcones) as it is to a dude with a
| Cessna.
|
| https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-
| news/2024/january/09...
|
| Edit - Source on AA fabricating their own tailcones:
| https://www.flightglobal.com/american-airlines-drives-
| effici...
| abdullahkhalids wrote:
| What are your thoughts on the artificial eye company that
| shut down, possibly leaving patients with non-working and
| non-repairable implants in their head [1]?
|
| [1] https://spectrum.ieee.org/bionic-eye-obsolete
| amlozano wrote:
| Is this sarcasm? I disagree vehemently. These are things that
| should be the most repairable.
| mike50 wrote:
| Not ships or other forms of transportation?
| rustcleaner wrote:
| >There are some exclusions
|
| We must not allow exceptions, it must be _every single
| universal machine!_
| teuobk wrote:
| While well-intentioned, I wonder if this will lead to something
| like the "sesame" debacle[1], in which is becomes far cheaper and
| easier for companies to deliberately design digital devices so as
| to be absolutely unrepairable -- even by the manufacturers
| themselves -- rather than provide parts and instructions for 3rd
| parties to effect repairs.
|
| [1] https://reason.com/2022/12/23/why-is-sesame-suddenly-in-
| ever...
| runlevel1 wrote:
| There's always some risk of a cobra effect. However, I'd rather
| we try something reasonable and have to reverse it than to not
| try anything at all.
| enriquec wrote:
| laws don't tend to get reversed very often, while unintended
| consequences are compounding
| bluSCALE4 wrote:
| This has been the status quo. Soldered SSDs, ram, keyboards
| that die from a speck of dust. It's the lack of oversight
| that's allowed companies to do as they please.
| hi-v-rocknroll wrote:
| Megacorp feudalism + a lack of coordinated customer pushback
| through "customer unions"
| jacobr1 wrote:
| The market largely self-regulates this. If you want systems
| with replaceable components built to high quality standards,
| they exist, but there are costs. They might costs more, not
| be cutting edge, not have the nice integrated form factors.
| But plenty of third-party-reviewers, brand reputation from
| customers, and fierce competition reigns in much of the worst
| practices of industry. But things move fast enough that it
| requires either relying on a reputation for quality or
| detailed review to get what you want. And the mainstream
| buyers don't care about soldered components (at point of
| purchase). They might care about resale value, but really
| doesn't hinder the current market too much, given how fast
| things deprecate relative to repairability. All of this is
| basically self-regulated by a highly competitive global
| market.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| I think you mean to say the market is "supposed to" self-
| regulate this.
|
| People don't notice early enough that it will cause
| problems, and they don't have equivalent options available
| that are more repairable but only marginally different in
| price and capability.
|
| Brand reputation reigns in "the worst", but pretty bad
| things still happen, and being unrepairable and non-
| upgradable isn't "the worst" so it keeps happening.
| jacobr1 wrote:
| > being unrepairable and non-upgradable isn't "the worst"
| so it keeps happening.
|
| Because it isn't collectively valued relative to other
| things, like have the most performant device. The bundle
| of things people value includes repairability ... but not
| that much. As I said, you can buy repairable and
| upgradable system, they just tend to be last-generation
| tech and cost more. Buyers just don't value it more. But
| clearly they value it some, which reaches that
| equilibrium of reigning in the "worst" as you say.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| The price premium for those niche options is orders of
| magnitude higher than it would be in a highly competitive
| market. People avoiding those options makes sense. The
| market is not competitive enough to consistently offer
| moderately important things like repairability in an
| accessible way, especially because it's hard to tell at a
| glance. The market is failing here.
|
| If it was there at a fair price, lots of buyers would
| pick it.
|
| But because the actual cost is quite low, we can have a
| good outcome by forcing it on companies, to also fight
| their perverse incentive to make disposable hardware.
| abdullahkhalids wrote:
| In an unregulated market, the presence of non-repairable
| products means that repairable products can't achieve
| economies of as scale as easily.
|
| This is a systematic effect, whose size must be quantified,
| so we can deploy appropriate regulation to counteract it.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| There are two reasons this often results in a market
| failure.
|
| One is when the market is too concentrated. So e.g. when
| substantially all of the SoCs in smartphones are made by
| just three companies, none of them have to provide adequate
| drivers or documentation unless the others do, and then
| their devices become e-waste as soon as they themselves
| stop updating the binary blob drivers for newer kernel
| versions, because the kernels the old blobs are compatible
| with have published security vulnerabilities. A better
| solution to this would be to break them up / stop letting
| them buy each other, but state-level governments have
| little ability to break up multi-national corporations and
| national governments have failed to do it, so here we are.
|
| The other is when the rule is to protect customers other
| than the original purchaser. In many of these markets one
| customer buys the product new, with a warranty, and then
| sells it to someone else when the warranty expires. The
| original customer doesn't care about repairability because
| all their repairs will be under warranty, and may not even
| care much about resale value because they're affluent, so
| the OEM can sell them a device that isn't repairable. But
| that screws the customers in the second-hand market who
| need to make out-of-warranty repairs, and it's those who
| the law is trying to protect.
| graphe wrote:
| CAMM2 will replace DDR.
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAMM_(memory_module) and it's
| not soldered. Did the keyboards cost Apple sales or costs in
| repair?
| throwaway48476 wrote:
| CAMM2 replaces SODIMM not DDR.
| hi-v-rocknroll wrote:
| Design For Manufacturing + Design For Obsolescence
|
| !=
|
| Design For Durability + Design For Repair + Design For Low TCO
|
| Recall how the GDR's unbreakable beer mugs failed to sell in
| the West and became lost to time because restaurant vendors
| insisted on selling "cheap", inferior, fragile products
| breaking regularly to ensure profits.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _because restaurant vendors insisted on selling "cheap",
| inferior, fragile products breaking regularly to ensure
| profits_
|
| I prefer thinner, lighter glassware. Even if it breaks more
| often. The fact that these products didn't do well in
| households should be Exhibit A for why restaurants' profit
| concerns weren't to blame.
| hi-v-rocknroll wrote:
| Incorrect and you're conflating thoughts.
|
| Households weren't offered that choice because they never
| entered the supply-chain.
|
| And it had nothing to do with restaurants' profits, and
| everything to do with distributors' and resellers' profits.
| jacobr1 wrote:
| Design For Obsolescence isn't often the goal ... just a side
| benefit. Not that it doesn't happen.
|
| The goal is usually something like: ensure we meet durability
| requirements X, while minimizing costs.
|
| Now in practice that might very much amount to the same
| practical impact, such as the product will break after the
| designed lifetime, but maybe not if it happens to be cheaper
| to use a simpler, cheaper component that actually is more
| durable. But probably there is some component that is the
| weak link that only meets the minimum design specs. And this
| yet one more reason why Repair is important, because many of
| the components are perfectly fine!
| hi-v-rocknroll wrote:
| Goal or not, that's immaterial. It was alleged as a primary
| objection to purchase of Coca-Cola reps to Superfest at a
| trade show.
|
| https://youtu.be/vEvBpjCOBu0?t=12m15s
|
| Video reference links: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1
| l8mKisckj6gcJXX2f0P01BrB...
| IncreasePosts wrote:
| People already steal beer mugs...buying very expensive ones
| that don't break would just be a target for thieves requiring
| you to replace them even more frequently than glass ones.
| hi-v-rocknroll wrote:
| (East) German restaurants and beer halls didn't and don't
| have that problem. Some of them still have them.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| Apple already did this. They've been doing it for over a
| decade. They don't do component-level repair, they do assembly
| swaps, because it's cheaper to make the customer pay $500 to
| replace a board with 100 soldered-on components than to pay
| $50k/yr more for a skilled technician to replace just one. Then
| they handcuff their vendors to make sure as many chips as
| possible on the board can only be bought by them.
|
| The reason why Louis Rossmann is - or, at least, _was_ able to
| fix your MacBook is because Apple 's vendors were breaching
| their supplier agreements. Apple worked around _that_ by
| putting Apple logos on all their components and getting Customs
| to seize any parts shipments coming out of China.
| kalleboo wrote:
| Why are you singling out Apple here? I can't think of _any_
| consumer product where the manufacturer does board-level
| repair. My washing machine dies? They replace the whole
| board. TV dies? replace the TCON board. My aircon stops? They
| replace the whole board. ECU in my car starts throwing
| errors? They replace the whole unit. What company sends out a
| repairman with a soldering iron?
| throwaway48476 wrote:
| None of those boards have expensive CPU's RAM, and NAND.
| runlevel1 wrote:
| Text of the law and votes here:
| https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb24-1121
|
| Direct link to the text as signed (pdf):
| https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2024a_1121_sign...
| hi-v-rocknroll wrote:
| Woohoo. CO got "documentation, parts, embedded software,
| firmware, [and] tools" for multiple product categories.
|
| More R2R rights are needed:
|
| 1. Either the UL or EPA needs to grade devices for repairability
| and TCO
|
| 2. a. Repair parts and b. phone-home cloud features should be
| disclosed how long they will remain on the market
|
| 3. a. When parts are no longer available (NLA), it should be
| legal to produce compatible replacements including circumventing
| DRM, b. when cloud features are no longer available officially,
| API endpoint(s) shall be modifiable to point to other servers
|
| 4. Schematics should be made available for electronic products
| from businesses with 500+ employees
|
| 5. It should be illegal to brick parts and devices based on their
| age, the current time, or by model, or for installing third-party
| parts
| FireBeyond wrote:
| > CO got "documentation, parts, embedded software, firmware,
| [and] tools" for multiple product categories.
|
| I remember when Tesla was first forced to comply with MA's R2R
| laws. It was like something out of Hitchhiker's Guide...
|
| There WAS a website where you could order parts, in theory.
| Except every single part on the site was either "Unavailable"
| or "Call Tesla", even down the simplest commodity bolts...
|
| There WAS somewhere you could go to look at the documentation /
| service manuals. You did have to make an appointment, though,
| and you did have to pay a fee, and there was a time limit, and
| you couldn't bring any electronic devices with you, only a
| legal pad and pencil...
| tbrownaw wrote:
| > _needs to grade devices for repairability and TCO_
|
| Wouldn't that be more of a Consumer Reports thing?
| ryukoposting wrote:
| Consumer Reports is a media company assigning gold stars to
| products their writers like. The EPA (or FCC, or ____) is a
| 3-letter with a nominal ability to enforce certain standards
| among devices presenting their mark. The purported
| accountability of a EPA/FCC/UL/whatever mark is key here.
| tbrownaw wrote:
| You are aware that Underwriters Laboratories is also not
| part of the government, yes?
| pseudalopex wrote:
| UL 110, Standard for Sustainability for Mobile Phones, has
| some repair criteria.
| mongrol wrote:
| Cool. I didn't know Scotland had a federal police force though.
| MR4D wrote:
| "Televisions"???
|
| How on earth do you go about repairing a TV ? I mean, the prices
| at MicroCenter are already ridiculously cheap.
|
| Then again, I suppose it's in the list to prevent manufactures
| from suing people as opposed to practical repair.
| SkyPuncher wrote:
| I've done it. I bought a TV off Craigslist for $20. Backlight
| was dead. Bought a $50 led strip from eBay, pulled the Tv apart
| and replaced the LED. At the time, this was like an $800 TV I
| "got" for $70 dollar plus an evening of work.
|
| In my opinion, if the screen isn't physically damaged (like
| having a WiiMote chucked at it), then it's basically a plug and
| play electronic component that needs to be replaced. Besides
| removing the TV casing, it's only marginally harder than
| swapping out components just a gaming PC.
|
| It's essentially just pulling some ribbons, swapping the
| components, then putting everything back in place.
| hackable_sand wrote:
| That's refreshing. TVs are very popular curbside decorations.
| I always thought about taking them home and fixing them up
| but could never convince myself I had the time or patience.
| MR4D wrote:
| Wow - thanks for the info - I never would have guessed that!
|
| So, can you replace the electronics by connecting to a
| different screen? For instance, from a different model,
| assuming the same resolution, like say put Samsung
| electronics together with an LG screen?
| SkyPuncher wrote:
| I don't know.
|
| In theory, I suspect that there's a _lot_ of
| standardization going on among products from the same
| manufacturer, but less so among different manufacturers.
| ryukoposting wrote:
| It's about as difficult as fixing any other household
| appliance, which isn't very difficult as long as it isn't
| hideously cheap and Apple wasn't involved.
| ssl-3 wrote:
| I've fixed my own TV. Samsung built the power supply with bad
| capacitors. It was easy to source the parts, and easy to
| replace the parts. (I'll probably end up fixing it again, soon
| -- there's a problem with what is doubtlessly a zebra strip
| that results in a lack of green subpixels for a one-pixel-wide
| vertical band when turned on, that eventually clears up. It
| just needs smooshed in the right spot.)
|
| Amusingly, it was still under extended warranty when the power
| supply problem first started, but by then the company that sold
| me the warranty had gone out of business.
|
| And Samsung eventually lost a class action lawsuit about this
| exact capacitor issue, but when I found out about that it was
| already too late to file a claim.
|
| So much for the invisible hand of the free market (and legal
| corrections thereof) keeping things in check.
| quantum_state wrote:
| Maybe I am missing something. As an owner of device or equipment,
| being able to repair is very basic right to the property. Why is
| it a big deal? Would love to be enlightened.
| syndicatedjelly wrote:
| Basic rights often need to be protected
| willseth wrote:
| You can have a right in principle but companies must actively
| take measures to make parts and documentation available for it
| to actually be possible to avail yourself of that right. The
| big deal is over which purposes and to what degree governments
| should be able to compel companies to offer this to their
| customers, support resale of used parts, support business that
| broker parts, etc. There are a lot of messy details and
| tradeoffs.
| 999900000999 wrote:
| Would be nice to have a law saying anything with a reasonable
| expectation of wear must be user replaceable.
|
| For example, every modern Mac will turn into e-waste within a
| decade since that SSD has to wear out. I don't care how high of a
| quality SSD you use, it just won't last forever.
|
| My 2-year-old MacBook Air would be the perfect computer if I
| could just put a larger SSD in it, but I can't. So I'm already
| looking at buying a new computer.
| wtallis wrote:
| How many SSDs have you worn out in your personal computers?
| They've been affordable for over a decade, so I assume you must
| have exhausted the write endurance on at least one drive,
| right?
| 999900000999 wrote:
| I honestly don't keep my computers that long, but from a
| practical point of view my 256GB SSD in my MacBook isn't
| really cutting it anymore.
| vivzkestrel wrote:
| can we please get a law like this that for games that prevents
| gaming companies from completely shutting a game past its EOL or
| forces gaming companies to add LAN to games they intend to shut
| servers for
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-05-30 23:02 UTC)