Forget about e-waste, it's my fucking property. I paid full price for a full product that is now mine. Not partially mine and partially the manufacturers.
When was the last time you were legally prevented from repairing your property, rather than say by your decision to purchase an item that didn't have spares available for sale to the general public, or was manufactured in a way that prevented repair?
> When was the last time you were legally prevented from repairing your property
"Legally prevented" is a dubious way to define this. You can use many approaches to prevent consumers from being able to repair things, but obviously sueing customers that try to repair things is not going to be an effective strategy. Still, you can definitely use the law to prevent replacement parts from being manufactured, or security mechanisms that may be illegal to circumvent.
> or was manufactured in a way that prevented repair?
That's exactly a focus of right to repair laws though. It's not about whether or not people are legally allowed to repair things, it's about regulating practices that thwart one's right to repair things, which have evolved unchecked for a while now. What's extremely sad is even mechanisms we know wouldn't hold up in court, like "warranty void if removed," continue to be effective anyways due to the lack of action.
I think this misses the previous point, though. They're saying, correctly, that claiming that "not being able to repair something implies a lack of ownership" is not a logical claim.
Nobody is literally referring to the concept of property ownership though, since that's not really what this is about.
Of course I literally "own" a device that I buy, but if the vendor forces me to agree to a ToS and EULA to be allowed (legally, thanks to DMCA) to use the product as advertised and can lock me out at any time, it's truly ownership in name only.
This is about fancy footwork using technological measures to diminish consumer rights and consumer choice without literally violating any law. The law has not caught up to this, but the writing is certainly on the wall.
> Nobody is literally referring to the concept of property ownership though
I don't see the point of this comment. If you read up in the thread:
> Forget about e-waste, it's my fucking property. I paid full price for a full product that is now mine. Not partially mine and partially the manufacturers
That doesn't mean there aren't other things to discuss, but people in this section of the comments are talking about ownership.
If you want to talk about whether it is good public policy to allow manufacturers to make computer stuffs that are difficult to repair or that have technical restrictions baked in that make it difficult to run software other than that provided by the manufacturer, please have at it.
To suggest that this is an ownership discussion is at best intellectually faulty and at worst the sort of hyperventilation that has people rolling their eyes at you.
Ownership is also a concept that humans understand, disconnected from whatever is written into law. In fact, the human understanding of what ownership is ultimately informs what goes into the law. Essentially by asking "who really owns this?" we're literally questioning why this is allowed to happen regarding stuff that we own.
All I can say is, you misunderstood what the comment you replied to was saying. You don't have to like it, but it's very evident to me that this is what happened.
I have a couple phones that are running older versions of Android. Still perfectly functional phones physically, but I can't "repair" them by installing a newer version of Android. This is in fact due to a lack of ownership, to update I would need a signing key that is owned by a defunct manufacturer.
It's similar with many physical things. Safe repair requires documentation and software tooling that some company considers trade secrets. I own it, but someone else owns the right to repair that piece of technology. Do I really own it if it's broken and I don't have the right to access required repair documentation?
I agree with your sentiment, but that's not specifically a question of ownership of the device. You bought the hardware, and it's yours to do what you like with it. However, part of what you bought is a box with a padlock, and you chose to buy hardware that did not come with the key to that padlock. It's still your padlock: no one is stopping you from trying to open it.
I would instead frame it as another variation of open-source vs closed source. That would be more accurate, IMHO.
Ownership of the padlock is clearly based in who owns the key. The idea that a company can sell me a device with a bunch of hidden padlocks and refuse to give me the key - this clearly makes it hard to say who owns the device. And they are stopping me from trying to open it, it's questionable if I legally can open it. Certainly, if I tried to sell a tool that allows people to open the padlock, the company that owns the padlock would probably say that is illegal under the DMCA.
>And they are stopping me from trying to open it, it's questionable if I legally can open it.
In the context of consumer electronics, in what scenario is it legally questionable if you can modify your own device?
This whole argument about ownership is really weak. It amounts to "a manufacturer, given a design choice, chose an option that made the product more difficult to self-repair / mod / root / run Linux on".
You don't own your phone any less because the manufacturer chose to glue it together rather than use screws.
Right - that is what I was getting at. The reason you can't easily replace the battery in your Samsung Galaxy S22 is completely unrelated to the extent to which you own it, as a matter of law, and more related to the fact that the phone back cover is attached with glue; you need to remove all kinds of fiddly cables to get to the battery; and then the battery itself is glued in place.
Nobody is keeping you from building your own equipment which is as upgradable as you like.
ADDED: Certainly manufacturers have done deliberately user-hostile things. (And I voted for this ballot initiative in MA.) But there are tradeoffs especially with respect to compact electronics.
That’s not how technology works. Only minor changes in CPUs are done without supporting motherboard changes. Are you also going to tell CPU manufacturers that they can’t put memory and the CPU on the same die?
Are you going to tell every computer manufacturer they have to use the same motherboard across all of their computers.
> Are you going to tell every computer manufacturer they have to use the same motherboard across all of their computers.
Roughly, yes. There are communication and energy standards, which are used by external devices, the CPUs should have embedded or externalized adapters to these standards. Motherboard is the place to assemble these standard-compliant devices together.
And are those standards going to work across all of the different form factors that Apple has for instance? Are they going to work across CPU architectures?
Well on one hand, pretty much yeah. Not literally of course, that would be absurd.
However, there should absolutely be strong incentives for manufacturers of computer hardware to focus on hardware that is built to last: chipsets designed with future development in mind, unsoldered external RAM, etc.
Incentivizing this is good because it prevents the situation where a vendor gets punished for "doing the right thing" and making hardware that doesn't need to be replaced as frequently.
But is that "right to repair"? Mostly no. I would place it more in the broader category of measures against ewaste.
And it will also result in worse computers that are necessarily slower and larger?
Should Apple be forced to use standardized boards that are meant for x86 chips? Should they be forced to try to use the same board for the Mac Mini, the iMac, and the Mac Studio?
In my opinion, forcing everyone to standardize on Intel architecture chips is bad for an entirely different reason. However, since the industry is already broadly standardized on DDR RAM, I think we're not losing anything by pushing for "standard" RAM interfaces, even if it's just "some kind of standard socket for current JEDEC spec". It's sort of in a similar vein to the EU pushing for USB-C standardization on phones.
For motherboards, it ought to just be more future-proofed. Exactly how to incentivize that is not trivial, definitely not going to be figured out in a Hacker News comments section.
> And it will also result in worse computers that are necessarily slower and larger?
Slightly, which is exactly why it's never going to just magically happen on its own even if it would literally be better for everyone overall. But I don't really buy the idea that Apple can't make a competitive motherboard or computer if they're forced to support modular system RAM.
And personally, I'm not in favor of outlawing soldered RAM or embedded RAM or what have you, I'm in favor of disincentivizing not supporting expandable RAM on desktop and laptop computers. It doesn't have to be illegal, but it absolutely should be discouraged.
I am not, on the whole, more concerned about Apple's bottom line over concerns like ewaste and consumer rights. I have a sneaking suspicion they will do just fine, somehow.
Unless you found another way to increase the speed that electrons move, the best way to have better speeds from RAM to the CPU is by integrating them on the same die. The slow, overheating, short battery life Intel world may have standardized on DDR RAM. But I’ll take my fast, quiet, cool, 14 hour battery life MacBook Pro 16 inch any day.
It’s not about Apple’s bottom line. It’s about making a better computer.
You’re taking away my right as a consumer to have a better computer.
Right to repair isn’t about standardising parts though, it’s about preventing things that purposefully prevent repair with no other good reason. For example, in recent Macbooks the lid closed sensor is paired to the device so if you replace it yourself it will stop working. Only Apple has the tool needed to pair it to the device and make it work again. There’s no good reason to do that apart from preventing repair
Why would I risk ruining my $3200 MacBook Pro to save $70 to replace the battery myself seeing how tight the tolerances are for everything related to laptop Macs instead of just letting Apple or a 3rd party authorized repair person do it for $249?
The glue on the battery is the least of my problems. Do you really think that Apple glues the battery down for that sweet little money they make on battery replacements for the relatively few they sell? Macs themselves only make up 10% of their revenue. How much do you think out of warranty battery replacements make them?
How much profit do you think Apple makes from selling batteries and replacement services considering how relatively few Macs Apple sells and how often people upgrade?
I agree but I wish the proponents of right to repair would ditch the e-waste message. Look around. We are drowning in throwaway junk products. The consumer obviously doesn't care. A better message would be that right to repair will save you money! Your things last longer and retain their resale value for longer. Now you're speaking my language!
Why not both? Most of these companies have green initiatives. Let's see them do something other than update their social media profile picture or mandate a corporate training or two.
I think that sometimes less is more when it comes to messaging or arguments because opponents will use your weakest argument against you. e-waste might sound like a liberal (environmental) issue to some where money is universal.
I'm pretty sure these ads actually convinced people to vote FOR the bill. The almost comical fear-mongering simply proved that manufacturers really had no actual counter-argument.
No, Massachusetts does not have a right to repair law. If you read the details the law divides "repair" between repair by businesses and repair by consumers. Along with the divide there are fiscal differences that disadvantage consumers. The result is that we now have a "Showcase Law" that pretends to serve the public, but it does not.
For example, in just one of the reports (60th day), you may see $2.8 million from Honda, $4.1 million from Ford, and $5.1 million from GM.
You could also see who received the money. Or at least, I saw it in the reports in the past. The reports all seems to say "unitemized" now... PR companies sure are adept at distancing their names from negative sentiment, aren't they?
It's pretty disappointing to see these companies paying to suppress our right to repair our own stuff. Thank you for showing me where NOT to spend my money in the future.
At this point I guess I buy old cars, to avoid giving the enemy money, and to avoid the spyware and other invasive technologies they are building into new vehicles.
I'm seeing a list of payments by clicking the data tab and then choosing expenditures from the drop down box. Or did you mean something else?
Appears a Buying Time LLC was paid several million. Mildly interesting, but not nessecarily damning is that boston.com (OP article) is listed as having been paid $90,000 to run advertisements.
52 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 108 ms ] threadLaptops Battery swap, Memory upgrade Cpu upgrade, Motherboard upgrade Standardized components PSU Motherboard sizes.
Headphones battery easy to swap. Speakers easy to swap. Main board easy to swap/upgrade
All these should be as easy as swapping aaa/aa batteries in devices.
Open source car/tractor Standard motor Standard framework etc
"Legally prevented" is a dubious way to define this. You can use many approaches to prevent consumers from being able to repair things, but obviously sueing customers that try to repair things is not going to be an effective strategy. Still, you can definitely use the law to prevent replacement parts from being manufactured, or security mechanisms that may be illegal to circumvent.
> or was manufactured in a way that prevented repair?
That's exactly a focus of right to repair laws though. It's not about whether or not people are legally allowed to repair things, it's about regulating practices that thwart one's right to repair things, which have evolved unchecked for a while now. What's extremely sad is even mechanisms we know wouldn't hold up in court, like "warranty void if removed," continue to be effective anyways due to the lack of action.
Of course I literally "own" a device that I buy, but if the vendor forces me to agree to a ToS and EULA to be allowed (legally, thanks to DMCA) to use the product as advertised and can lock me out at any time, it's truly ownership in name only.
This is about fancy footwork using technological measures to diminish consumer rights and consumer choice without literally violating any law. The law has not caught up to this, but the writing is certainly on the wall.
I don't see the point of this comment. If you read up in the thread:
> Forget about e-waste, it's my fucking property. I paid full price for a full product that is now mine. Not partially mine and partially the manufacturers
That doesn't mean there aren't other things to discuss, but people in this section of the comments are talking about ownership.
If you want to talk about whether it is good public policy to allow manufacturers to make computer stuffs that are difficult to repair or that have technical restrictions baked in that make it difficult to run software other than that provided by the manufacturer, please have at it.
To suggest that this is an ownership discussion is at best intellectually faulty and at worst the sort of hyperventilation that has people rolling their eyes at you.
All I can say is, you misunderstood what the comment you replied to was saying. You don't have to like it, but it's very evident to me that this is what happened.
It's similar with many physical things. Safe repair requires documentation and software tooling that some company considers trade secrets. I own it, but someone else owns the right to repair that piece of technology. Do I really own it if it's broken and I don't have the right to access required repair documentation?
I would instead frame it as another variation of open-source vs closed source. That would be more accurate, IMHO.
In the context of consumer electronics, in what scenario is it legally questionable if you can modify your own device?
This whole argument about ownership is really weak. It amounts to "a manufacturer, given a design choice, chose an option that made the product more difficult to self-repair / mod / root / run Linux on".
You don't own your phone any less because the manufacturer chose to glue it together rather than use screws.
That's because the glue is equal-opportunity. It doesn't give them a back door while blocking me.
ADDED: Certainly manufacturers have done deliberately user-hostile things. (And I voted for this ballot initiative in MA.) But there are tradeoffs especially with respect to compact electronics.
Are you going to tell every computer manufacturer they have to use the same motherboard across all of their computers.
Roughly, yes. There are communication and energy standards, which are used by external devices, the CPUs should have embedded or externalized adapters to these standards. Motherboard is the place to assemble these standard-compliant devices together.
However, there should absolutely be strong incentives for manufacturers of computer hardware to focus on hardware that is built to last: chipsets designed with future development in mind, unsoldered external RAM, etc.
Incentivizing this is good because it prevents the situation where a vendor gets punished for "doing the right thing" and making hardware that doesn't need to be replaced as frequently.
But is that "right to repair"? Mostly no. I would place it more in the broader category of measures against ewaste.
Should Apple be forced to use standardized boards that are meant for x86 chips? Should they be forced to try to use the same board for the Mac Mini, the iMac, and the Mac Studio?
For motherboards, it ought to just be more future-proofed. Exactly how to incentivize that is not trivial, definitely not going to be figured out in a Hacker News comments section.
> And it will also result in worse computers that are necessarily slower and larger?
Slightly, which is exactly why it's never going to just magically happen on its own even if it would literally be better for everyone overall. But I don't really buy the idea that Apple can't make a competitive motherboard or computer if they're forced to support modular system RAM.
And personally, I'm not in favor of outlawing soldered RAM or embedded RAM or what have you, I'm in favor of disincentivizing not supporting expandable RAM on desktop and laptop computers. It doesn't have to be illegal, but it absolutely should be discouraged.
I am not, on the whole, more concerned about Apple's bottom line over concerns like ewaste and consumer rights. I have a sneaking suspicion they will do just fine, somehow.
It’s not about Apple’s bottom line. It’s about making a better computer.
You’re taking away my right as a consumer to have a better computer.
I wouldn't do that. But do you think it is necessary, that your battery is fixed by glue?
You won't have a 14 h battery life forever. And easy battery change should be standard, unless we are talking about diving electronics.
The glue on the battery is the least of my problems. Do you really think that Apple glues the battery down for that sweet little money they make on battery replacements for the relatively few they sell? Macs themselves only make up 10% of their revenue. How much do you think out of warranty battery replacements make them?
That's the point. A battery is way cheaper and so would be the replacement, if not for the glue. If you are fine with it, thats fine for you.
And every solid laptop will need a new battery at some point. That all adds up to Apples revenue.
How much profit do you think Apple makes from selling batteries and replacement services considering how relatively few Macs Apple sells and how often people upgrade?
(That's basically the scenario that opposition ads were depicting)
https://youtu.be/EozPi1qmH44
https://ocpf.us/Filers/FilerInfo?q=95471
For example, in just one of the reports (60th day), you may see $2.8 million from Honda, $4.1 million from Ford, and $5.1 million from GM.
You could also see who received the money. Or at least, I saw it in the reports in the past. The reports all seems to say "unitemized" now... PR companies sure are adept at distancing their names from negative sentiment, aren't they?
GM, Ford, Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Chrysler, Kia, Hyundai, Subaru, Volkswagen, Mazda USA, BMW, Jaguar, Volvo, Tesla, Mitsubishi, Daimler Mercedes-Benz USA
Pretty much all of the big names. Not sure what auto manufacturer you could buy a car from in the future.
Appears a Buying Time LLC was paid several million. Mildly interesting, but not nessecarily damning is that boston.com (OP article) is listed as having been paid $90,000 to run advertisements.