I find it irritating that the BBC fails to mention how bad the new UK legislation on the right to repair is. Neither this article nor the one linked in it mention that the UK law excludes smartphones and laptops (https://interestingengineering.com/uk-right-to-repair-law-le...). Two of the main offenders when looking at if from a consumer viewpoint.
I like fixing things rather than discarding so I’m in favor of the underlying principle. But I’d prefer a free-market solution rather than a regulatory one.
I’d rather someone creates a private civil society organization whose gives a stamp of approval for products that meet the repair standard.
The market can decide to pay a slight premium for products that go through approval process.
I don’t see why this standard should be forced on everyone, and it create more regulatory complexity, more government overhead to enforce, and so on.
>I’d rather someone creates a private civil society organization whose gives a stamp of approval for products that meet the repair standard.
Many industries only have a handful of firms, it wouldn't be difficult for them to collude and entirely ignore a private civil society organization. Government has the power of enforcement, which is a necessary component of this goal.
Why does it have to be imposed and enforced. If you think about it, this law reduces profit for firms which will get pushed back to consumers in the form of price. Why not let those consumers who want to pay that “tax” have the choice.
And I don’t see how collusion comes into it, the rating organization I propose loses credibility unless it’s considered objective so it’s incentives to work for consumers.
Enforcing this rule is like forcing all meat manufacturers to be Kosher. As it stands those who want to eat kosher can opt to pay the extra “kosher tax” which goes to the beth din, a private organization that confirms products are kosher. Why should non Jews pays that tax.
If someone would rather pay less for a product that he can’t fix, why deny him that choice.
Because it won't happen otherwise. The evidence is easily seen in the current state of these markets. If a company wanted to do this voluntarily, they already would have.
Yeah because such a company would make less profit because people wouldn’t have to replace their products as often. But having a private industry body ensures that company that does opt to make their product repairable get duly accredited. Then if you want to buy this more expensive device then you have the choice. If not enough people are willing to pay the premium then maybe this solution isn’t as urgent as we think and isn’t work the regulatory overhead and increased product cost
Another benifit of right to repair is increasing the lifespan of electronic devices by making sure that people can buy the necessary parts and blueprints to fix their device. While something like this is much better to reduce our e waste, it's not of any benifit to the customer or company in the short term. This is why I think any mom regulatory solutions will not work
Free market approach breaks down when people don't have a choice (all competition behaves the same) or they're too easily influenced by marketing (they're manipulated into buying products that are less consumer friendly). Regulation done right protects consumers and, equally importantly, fosters competition, which is eassential for a healthy capitalist society.
I recently had to swap the headphone/proximity sensor/face ID illuminator assembly on an iPhone X. The illuminator is cryptographically coupled to the phone, so you loose face ID when swapping in a new part.
I understand why Apple would secure the fingerprint sensor, the dot projector and the depth camera, but I fail to understand why Apple did that with the illuminator. It doesn't seem relevant for security? Anyone got an idea besides "lol fuck consumer repairs"?
Stopping jerrymandering and voting purges, stopping oil subsidies, full supply carbon and recycling tax, political campaign spending caps, ending the two party system, ranked choice, raising the minimum wage, VAT tax, universal healthcare, using popular vote instead of electoral vote, privacy rights online and in person, etc....
This is a needed change. I argue to accompany new laws by some sort of "traffic light system" and a commission which adapts the rules permanently. The traffic light should be a requirement like an EC or FCC check but obvious, regulated and prominent placed on product.
e.g.
[ ] maintenance manual
[ ] diagrams
[ ] battery replacement without possible destructive
manipulation (plastic snaps okay, screws okay, glue not)
[ ] replacement parts are available or x years
[ ] requirements for third party replacement parts are documented
[ ] if software provides a computing interface (not mere appliance), it provide a breakable seale, and the software must be user replaceable with user provided code, including open-source software
[ ] if software is actually part of the product, is must be stated how long updates are provided
[ ] some new item here, it will be reevaluated at least one in year per device category
I recommend two exceptions, one special purpose products and another for tiny batches. And it should applied upon broad product categories, from laptops, over smartphones, to cars and household appliances. Every other product should be become more expensive if one or more "traffic lights" are red - customers understand this very well and if a company can earn more money with a "green" product they prefer to do so. Aside from "repair" I could also think about the same for "how are humans treat during production" and "how is the environment treat during production". But that is not strictly part of this topic.
But things will become more expensive?
My current ThinkPad is ten years old. Swapped battery twice, increased RAM from 4 GB to 16 GB, new keyboard some years ago and I removed all dust last year which was quite some work - but there was this helpful maintenance manual. I did cost a lot more money than a cheap laptop, but taking the lifespan into account I think it price/value is good.
> [ ] if software is actually part of the product, is must be stated how long updates are provided
that's an awesome idea.
and if a producer doesn't live up to their promise (most of them), they are then forced by law to release the code/open source the product, so their products don't turn into garbage/e-waste and give cancer to children in Ghana [1]
In Switzerland you are allowed to change your battery without loosing your warranty. I am sure this factor creates a cost overhead for phone creators here in Switzerland. If more countries would enforce rules like this, they would likely be forced to make it easier again.
I guess this depends on where you buy it and how you pay. But I haven't seen less than a year, normal seems to be about 2 and many pay like $30 extra to extend this to 4 years. My bank currently offers 6 years, but no idea how this actually works.
Indium, used as ITO in many lcd screens, has a recycling rate of <10%. This is just one example of something that can't continue (a) environmental effects and (b) these things do run out, especially rare metals like indium. Wondering how the lack of inclusion of smart phones/laptops can be justified given this. Lack of critical viewpoint in the bbc article is ridiculous.
The right thing to do would be to let repairable products and non repairable products coexist and people can vote with their wallet. I don't see why Government has to stop a company from selling non repairable ones. If making something non repairable means it can be more compact or lighter and if there are people who prefer that what's the point in stopping that free market transaction?
35 comments
[ 2.0 ms ] story [ 73.8 ms ] threadNext time I'll change the battery sooner.
Many industries only have a handful of firms, it wouldn't be difficult for them to collude and entirely ignore a private civil society organization. Government has the power of enforcement, which is a necessary component of this goal.
Enforcing this rule is like forcing all meat manufacturers to be Kosher. As it stands those who want to eat kosher can opt to pay the extra “kosher tax” which goes to the beth din, a private organization that confirms products are kosher. Why should non Jews pays that tax. If someone would rather pay less for a product that he can’t fix, why deny him that choice.
Because it won't happen otherwise. The evidence is easily seen in the current state of these markets. If a company wanted to do this voluntarily, they already would have.
I wish humans would find these marketing tactics unethical. Instead they are manipulated by them.
I understand why Apple would secure the fingerprint sensor, the dot projector and the depth camera, but I fail to understand why Apple did that with the illuminator. It doesn't seem relevant for security? Anyone got an idea besides "lol fuck consumer repairs"?
What other things are obvious for you and we still have to fight for?
Russian Propagandists pretend to be patriotic Americans because of anonymity.
At the same time, a creepy person can generally find my home address.
I don't know of a good solution.
The list can go on and on.
These are massive dangerous changes that can literally cause death.
People are too confident. Humility would do us good.
e.g.
[ ] maintenance manual
[ ] diagrams
[ ] battery replacement without possible destructive manipulation (plastic snaps okay, screws okay, glue not)
[ ] replacement parts are available or x years
[ ] requirements for third party replacement parts are documented
[ ] if software provides a computing interface (not mere appliance), it provide a breakable seale, and the software must be user replaceable with user provided code, including open-source software
[ ] if software is actually part of the product, is must be stated how long updates are provided
[ ] some new item here, it will be reevaluated at least one in year per device category
I recommend two exceptions, one special purpose products and another for tiny batches. And it should applied upon broad product categories, from laptops, over smartphones, to cars and household appliances. Every other product should be become more expensive if one or more "traffic lights" are red - customers understand this very well and if a company can earn more money with a "green" product they prefer to do so. Aside from "repair" I could also think about the same for "how are humans treat during production" and "how is the environment treat during production". But that is not strictly part of this topic.
But things will become more expensive? My current ThinkPad is ten years old. Swapped battery twice, increased RAM from 4 GB to 16 GB, new keyboard some years ago and I removed all dust last year which was quite some work - but there was this helpful maintenance manual. I did cost a lot more money than a cheap laptop, but taking the lifespan into account I think it price/value is good.
that's an awesome idea.
and if a producer doesn't live up to their promise (most of them), they are then forced by law to release the code/open source the product, so their products don't turn into garbage/e-waste and give cancer to children in Ghana [1]
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mleQVO1Vd1I
https://www.rsc.org/periodic-table/element/49/indium
On a phone, would changing the battery be considered repair/maintenance? How about inserting a memory stick?
If I have a scratch on my manufacturer supplied protective plastic on my phone, is it considered repair/maintenance for me to replace the screen?
If my phone is worn and the paint is coming off, if I repaint it with an airbrush, is that considered repair/maintenance?
If I have water in my phone, and I pull off the back cover and remove the water, is that considered repair/maintenance?