An example would be a tractor that is designed to be cheaply serviceable, but has a feature which disables any replaced parts until a message signed by the the original equipment manufacturer and authorizing the replacement part has been received.
It's also important to specify that we don't ask for MORE documentation (although that wouldn't hurt), just access to the documentation they give to the authorized technician, or their own staff.
It's not a law of nature that making things better for yourself will make them better for your customers. In fact, the opposite is usually true.
In fact, it would not surprise me in the least if vendors selling third-party iPhone batteries included pentalobe screwdrivers with the battery (or offered it as an add-on).
I think we all would do well to remember that it's always easier to say something is wrong than to create a solution. It's also worth noting that governments are arguably worse than anyone else at determining such edge cases as secure vs. user-hostile.
Security is different because a device can be made secure without it being repair hostile - e.g, the owner of the device has the private keys in a signed code update. So a maid can't just Willy Nilly change your baby monitor, but you can.
How do you store these? It's not really user friendly for the average consumer, and certainly has little recourse if you lose them all. How well does it usually go when people are told to keep track of, say, a dongle? What if each device needs one?
Think about your lawnmower. If the engine won't run, maybe you can figure out through a bit of research that it's probably the spark plug. So you can go buy a spark plug and swap it yourself. You don't need the manufacturer to authorize your new spark plug.
However, many people would not know anything about where to begin replacing their spark plug, and don't want the hastle to learn, so they bring it to the manufacturer and pay a premium to have it done for them. But if they someday decided to learn, they could learn themselves. Or even take their lawnmower to a friend who can help them.
To take away those option entirely, only leaving the one option -- paying the manufacturer a premium to do it for you -- is what I have an issue with.
Bonus: the lawnmower manufacturer could include a type of safety lock that does not allow you to work on your lawnmower, to prevent a user from hurting themselves. However, the manufacturer should also give the user the ability to remove that lock, positively asserting that they know what they're doing (like giving the private keys, or allowing a motherboard switch to be toggled which unlocks the system, etc)
I can't flash my Android phone without unlocking it, which format it, and as long as it's unlocked, there's a warning message on boot.
There's always a way to make it serviceable, worst case, allow the user to deactivate theses security feature after a full format.
Planned obsolescence is a very shitty and cynical strategy on the part of manufacturers, and anyone fighting against it is on the right side.
Agree.
> anyone fighting against it is on the right side
Don't. For example, Louis Rossmann recently kicked up a storm when he claimed that Apple used the customs to seize his "genuine" battery shipments (which was widely reported in the media and gave him significant publicity), except it turned out that he left out the fact that the parts were unauthorized: https://old.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/9pow06/louis_rossman.... Self-serving PR stunts that consist of misinformation and depend on the subsequent media outrage don't help "the right side".
No, it doesn't. In fact, I think it's pretty explicit in making the situation clear:
> First of all, let me start by saying, I am not defending Apple's terrible stance towards Right to Repair.
> I think Apple's R2R policy is awful - It sucks that once the device you buy is on the "obsolete" list, you can no longer get 1st party service from Apple. Not only that, but there are no legal ways to obtain parts. IMO this is something all of us should be putting pressure on Apple to change. I'd love it if there was a law on the books that forced companies to make spare parts for products available to customers for x amount of years after the warranty expires. That would allow people to continue using the devices they buy.
> In closing, I'm going to continue supporting Louis, iFixit, and their attempts to secure our rights to repair the products we own.
But it is also very obvious that Louis Rossman was clearly dishonest. Actually, I don't quite understand your argument:
> If factories are producing batteries with a default Apple logo (ie to Chinese standards), and he's instructing them to cross it out, that also seems completely legitimate.
How is this "completely legitimate"? Apple is (quite understandably) annoyed that some factories decided to make batteries that Louis could peddle as genuine Apple batteries, when it's clear that they are in fact not these at all (they're crossing out the logos to pass customs, for heaven's sake). Of course they're going to be seized, because they're counterfeit: Apple probably wasn't even involved here. I'm surprised he has the gall to try to make this a huge PR issue by claiming that Apple was trying to stop him from repairing Macs with genuine batteries that he bought when he knows they're just shady batteries from China he's trying to bring into the country.
Go read our laws and do try to keep up with them, eh? You're one of the reasons things like this are happening.
1 preventing people to repair their hardware with software locks, not selling parts, not providing documentation, copyrighting schematics, repairs manuals and doing all you can to not allow third parties to fix hardware.
2 building thins that are impossible or hard to repair because you don't care about the fact that for a broken key you have to replace half the laptop because your profits are high enough and making a more repairable device is too much work , more expensive or not as cool looking.
IMO point 1 should be illegal, I should be able to buy parts for my laptop,computer,phone,car or other device and have a specialist repair my device.
Point 2 is more debatable, some manufacturers could abuse this to force you buy new things when the warranty expires rather then you replace the broken component. At least forcing the companies to pay the correct price for proper recycling without hidden externalities would help on this point.
If you want to take stuff apart, Go for it! But Apple should not be required to write, edit, and sell manuals that it does not want to.
You know what you're getting when you buy the product. It's critically important to be able to say "no warranty whatsoever"; Open Source wouldn't exist without that, and neither would the (still quite small) open hardware community. Nor, for that matter, would small hardware manufacturers.
(I do feel that you should always be legally allowed to try repairing something. That doesn't mean the manufacturer has to actively help you, or do work for you for free.)
For example, most consumer ice makers on the market in the UK has the same design flaw. I know because I learned in frustration to spot the signs. The design is clearly copied by multiple manufacturers. The problem is someone cut a few cents of their BOM by leaving out a sensor for when the water tray has rotated far enough, and instead just runs the motor 'long enough'.
Except most models on the market uses a plastic tray where doing that repeatedly eventually causes the tray to crack from the stress.
Most consumers buying those products won't know. It took my second one breaking and me taking apart both that one and my third one before I realised how the design is broken. Turns out even wildly different looking models still use the same basic mechanism.
In this case it's a trivially fixable machine once you know what the problem is if you have access to a spare tray. The exact same part would fit in many mods. Except they're not available for sale. So you junk 5-10kg of serviceable metal and plastic parts because of lack of a 100g part.
That may be fine for the manufacturers, but it's hugely detrimental to society that these products are being sold when most people have no way of telling upfront that they'll fail - it takes just long enough heavy use that most reviews don't reflect the problems.
No you don't. That's most of the point of warranties.
> Open Source
Sharing source code isn't a sale. If you do sell a program, open/closed source doesn't matter, and you don't need the ability to say "no warranty".
> open hardware community. Nor, for that matter, would small hardware manufacturers.
If you make more than a thousand of something, you have the resources to include a few diagrams and a simple but useful manual. For now I won't say anything about smaller quantities.
If someone makes more than a thousand of something, they probably also have the resources to buy you a free lunch, too. But that's not the product you bought.
And generally you can avoid it for bespoke items. It's not a barrier to personal deals.
I don't want to prohibit the equivalent of "This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY".
> And generally you can avoid it for bespoke items. It's not a barrier to personal deals.
I'm not just talking about bespoke or "personal deals", I'm also talking about "crowdfunded, we made 6,473 of them, but we're not a big company". Or "here are some schematics to build a piece of hardware, I'm not making any promises about the result". Or any number of other situations in which the choice is not "write and provide a repair manual or not", it's "develop the product or not".
Got any suggestions to make that actually happen? The benefit per sale is small enough that it's really hard to get the demand together on a per-product basis. Consumers don't have the time to learn every minor certification body either. But making the decision in bulk, as a society, is a lot more feasible.
Also, there isn't an infinite variety of products. The more dimensions you have to filter by, the worse your result gets per dollar. The free market can't solve everything at the same time.
> I don't want to prohibit the equivalent of "This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY".
That is again not a sale. And you can have triple your $0 back if it breaks.
> I'm also talking about "crowdfunded, we made 6,473 of them, but we're not a big company". Or "here are some schematics to build a piece of hardware, I'm not making any promises about the result". Or any number of other situations in which the choice is not "write and provide a repair manual or not", it's "develop the product or not".
A small crowdfunded operation can do this more easily than a big company. They can have a designer spend two days getting the final schematics together and writing a short document. It's such a miniscule cost that it will almost never be the difference between producing and not producing, and that tiny risk is worth the benefits.
And a schematic documents itself pretty well. But if you really don't want to make any promises then maybe don't charge money for the design.
To add to what others said on it: no, you don't. You would if the manufacturers provided full specs, data sheets and CAD drawings of the internals. They don't, for obvious reasons. What's worse, the whole point of a sales copy is to confuse you about what you're getting - providing disinformation, in form of vague promises of emotional effects and feature statements so broad you could drive an aircraft carrier through. A lot of consumer laws exist to counter this dynamic.
> Open Source wouldn't exist without that
It would, if the software was also free :). This is a longer topic, but there's an argument to be made that software industry is in its sorry state precisely because it's allowed to sell software "with no warranty whatsoever".
That's not what I'm referring to. I mean that you know when buying the product that there's no warranty.
>You know what you're getting when you buy the product This is not true, even today many people go in store, browse things and buy without going and read tons of reviews and complains about the product, do you think that the majority of people that buy a printer know the crap the manufactures do related to the cartridges(it is not printed on the box)? Companies would abuse their power to make more money, I remember when a law had to be passed here in Romania so that money exchanges would print the commission rates on big letters at minimum 10 centimeters because their were abusing people and no competition or educating people fixed it. better to fix the root cause then work around with free market ideology.
1 So let me know why should some companies not sell parts?
2 why not share the pdf with schematics and diagnostic software or punish people that share them(is not cost)
Same should be applied to electronics (and a wide range of other consumer goods).
For example, the manufacturer doesn't have to waste the energy to recycle the case if the case can be reused by making the battery user-serviceable.
First, the shareholders get all the profits.
Then what?
...that's it.
/s
But I don't believe that they should be required to keep it under warranty in that case. I'm fine with a company putting a warranty seal on a device if they don't want people to touch the insides.
Who defines "useful lifetime" though? The manufacturer would then be even more compelled to make engineer planned obsolescence since no one wants to be on the hook for having to take back products 10, 20, or even 40 years from now. But keeping electronics operational for multiple decades is one of the goals of right-to-repair. With your proposal we'd have nothing but short lifetime disposable electronics. We should be focusing on solutions that create less waste, not more.
That's already illegal[0] in the US. However that won't stop companies from from telling 99.9% of its customers that aren't aware of the law, that their warranty is void.
[0] Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act
Why not?
> I'd rather see legislation that ensures when a piece of tech reaches the end of its useful lifetime it can be submitted back to the manufacturer and properly recycled at no cost to the user.
It is always and exclusively at the cost of the user?
You shouldn't have to deal with an extra mm and all the inconvenience that comes along with it just to support my right to replace the battery.
So, you can still make it mandatory where you don't need to make things bigger?
I'd love more things to be fixable but this kind of micro-management sounds terrifying.
Well, I dunno, but that's a question with every law, and thus not exactly an argument by itself?
> I'd love more things to be fixable but this kind of micro-management sounds terrifying.
But why would there need to be micro-management?
We're not talking about the need to have cops decide whether 71MPH was too fast or not. We're talking about whether your customers would hypothetically have been as satisfied with an iphone that was 1mm thicker, because if they would, there's a law which says you have to make it repairable. Bring your expert witnesses and panel surveys to convince the jury.
You propose some new design which is more compact / easier to manufacture / more reliable because it has fewer connectors, and then you take it to the ministry for approval. How do they know whether your changes are justified? Maybe they sketch an easier-to-disassemble variant which is no bigger than yours, and reject your design, but they don't understand the why it will cost you twice as much to assemble that design (in your factory, with your workforce) or why you rejected that kind of connector (your experience with the supplier, or your vibration tests). Can you prove why you made these decisions? Call expert witnesses? This just seems like an impossible minefield to me.
I think better to tilt the balance in other ways, like pushing longer guarantees (regardless of whether the best solution is an unbreakable one-piece object, or a repairable one) and forcing recycling (so that the sticker price includes more of the total lifecycle cost).
> Why not?
Because,
1) I personally don't care about this. 2) More important than 1, I don't think the law/government has any business deciding this. The market can decide (spoiler: it already has).
Garbage is a problematic externality because if you try to charge true cost for it, people throw their garbage in the street or the ocean instead of paying. So we generally have subsidized trash pickup, and then "the market" literally overproduces garbage due to the subsidy.
One solution to that is to require the devices to pay the recycling cost up front, but everybody hates that because it makes the device more expensive, moreso than making it repairable would.
The other is to require it to be modular/repairable so that when one component fails or becomes obsolete it can be replaced or upgraded, which extends the life of the other components and reduces the total number of devices that have to be produced and ultimately end up in a landfill.
This may actually increase the original purchase price of the device by quite a bit, because the manufacturer will end up selling fewer units (that's the whole idea) but still have to recover the same fixed costs. But then the user doesn't have to replace their device as often, so the net cost should be slightly lower (the gain being the actual reduction in waste).
In a very oblique manner it did. Industrialization (which was very much a product of free markets) of the Northern States made the economics of slavery untenable in the North. Once people were not as blinded by profits, they could actually see that slavery was a moral evil. In the South, the economics were very different and therefore a lot of rationalizations were formed as to why slavery was not that evil.
In addition, Industrialization enabled larger population growth in the North as well as larger production. This is what gave the Union the advantage in manpower and material that allowed the North to win the Civil War.
It was actually quite the opposite. Pre-industrialization, serfdom and slavery were basically equivalent. You hand a local lord and if you worked for him you got food and shelter. Your alternative was to run off into the wilderness and fend for yourself, which frequently meant starving or freezing to death or being mauled by a bear. Unsurprisingly not many people chose that.
Then factories show up and suddenly your alternative is to run off and go work in the factory. Naturally many people started preferring to do that, which turned the plantations upside down because their economic system was based on the workers not having anywhere else to go.
Their response was brutal. Chains to keep slaves from running away, hunting runaway slaves with dogs, savage beatings, etc. None of that stuff was really commonplace before industrialization. The response to industrialization was what made 19th century slavery so much worse than traditional serfdom.
But that response was as futile as it was brutish. The factories made slavery uneconomical. You can't defeat supply and demand with chains and whips. All they do is cause the slaves to want to run away more.
The factories destroyed slavery directly, by out-competing it. It's questionable whether the war was even net positive -- that was a whole lot of blood spilled over an economic system that couldn't have sustained itself much longer in any event.
In the South, people's livelihood depending on slavery. Because of that, their minds did all sorts of rationalizations as to why slavery was not that bad.
>The response to industrialization was what made 19th century slavery so much worse than traditional serfdom.
The other thing that made 19th century slavery so much worse than traditional serfdom was the racial aspect. If a serf had some skill and went to a town and somehow became a craftsman, people could not look at the him and know he had once been a serf. Because of the racial aspect, ex-slaves could not escape people immediately knowing that they had been slaves.
Even if say free market solved the issue, is it reasonable to wait centuries for the free markets to solve things then dare to vote some laws ?
It's worth knowing that the south was once considerably richer than the north, but industrialisation changed things in the 19th C, by the end of which the north was vastly richer (per capita), richer than anywhere had ever been before. In this sense free capitalism did vastly outcompete an unfree economy.
Why?
> The market can decide
Does that mean that it should decide?
> (spoiler: it already has).
Has it? How did you determine that?
I don't believe manufacturers should have to build things to be easy to take apart, to be replaceable or upgradeable, or anything else along those lines.
I'd rather see legislation that ensures when a piece of tech reaches the end of its useful lifetime it can be submitted back to the manufacturer and properly recycled at no cost to the user.