Maybe adding a fat tax (say, 50% sales tax of endpoint product sale price) on fundamentally unrepairable products. This is a spectrum: if a company could glue a phone and get a thin sleek sexy glass brick OR it could use some small screws and it won't be quite as slender/sexy... Going with the former on average with every a/b choice in design should trigger the tax and effectively kill your product vs more compliant competitors.

I've been wanting to see this applied to anything with a universal machine, where it was made to prevent the owner from modifying software/firmware/microcode. As a customer, I want Stallmanism enshrined in law dealing with both computing and product design.

couldn't agree more.

'right to repair' alone will only allow for more externalities when shipping a product. mandating a better product will bring repairability with it, because only then will it also be in the manufacturers interest.

> Right to repair is a nice idea and it's heart is in the right place, but won't ever work for something like a consumer phone.

Why not? Every major phone manufacturer uses numerous techniques to make devices unrepairable and yet people still find ways to fix them. I'm not a hardware engineer, but I have fixed multiple devices, and I have no special skills or equipment besides standard ifixit toolkits. The only hindrances are introduced by manufacturers themselves. Replacing or refunding devices doesn't reduce e-waste, on the contrary.

I can't get behind what you're saying but I am curious to hear your take. Why do you think right to repair "won't ever work"?

Because you generate, at best, an adversarial situation. The self-repair users are in it mostly for being cheap (or thinking it’s cheaper) and are (largely) unable to do a better-than-trained-technician job of a (probably) complicated job. Both are an annoyance to the producer. And not one where they risk a lot for (this only affects a minority of purchases)

On the other hand, mandating long warranty times puts the Producer vs the state. Which is a much harder situation to decide “I’ll just ignore that”.

And if you say; that right to repair is also a state decision… it’s only kinda. Because what right-to-repair means (or is thought to mean) differs _widely_. But the nice thing about the warranty thing would be that it would create a large incentive to make it cheaper to repair things. Which probably ends up with the same situation (ie experts, or self-perceived experts, being able to help themselves)

> unable to do a better-than-trained-technician job of a (probably) complicated job

Isn't this because manufacturers are actively hindering repair shops? It's both the result and the cause of the manufacturers' strategy. No schematics, devices built without taking repairability in mind and very expensive parts or parts that come with caveats.

Making longer warranties is always welcome but it won't help as much, because the vast majority of repairs aren't covered under warranty. I'm guessing that most repairs are due to user error than manufacturing defects thus not covered under warranty.

> Because you generate, at best, an adversarial situation.

This shouldn't be the case. Reducing e-waste and thus doing everything possible for sustainability should be the priority here. I've found myself many times in a situation where a perfectly working device was damaged, or just stopped receiving software updates and had to be decommissioned because of security concerns, and this is not only limited to phones.

> I can't get behind what you're saying but I am curious to hear your take. Why do you think right to repair "won't ever work"?

hnaccount_rng has already raised good points. I will add to them:

1) Working in product compliance I have learned: The simpler the rules, the harder it is to avoid them/weasel them. "Right to repair" rules will ALWAYS be more complicated than a simple "good" warranty. You are essentially legislating how to design products which has an infinite solution space. AND what do you legislate? "It has to be repairable". What is that?

- What skill level of the technician is required? What is the maximum time that they are allowed to spend to deem it "repairable"? (given enough time and skill you can repair almost anything). How we do verify that? Do they need a certification now? Who sets the requirements for that? Who does the testing? Or should the consumer be able to fix it? What tools are allowed or not allowed? Are custom tools allowed? Do I now have to manufacture them and sell those? (cause we use lots of bespoke tools). Now I have to inventory those items, that's going to cost.

- Are mechanical jigs (which are ubiquitous and very expensive and normally bespoke for manufacturing or repairs) allowed? How complicated can they be? Say they are allowed, how does the technician use it? Do I now have to manufacturer it and make is saleable? How much can it cost? (they can easily cost tens of thousands). Can I just lend said jig? For how long? Who insures it when it is in transit? How many jigs must I have in circulation at any time so that repairs are conducted fast enough?

- Can I not use glue anymore? Or only certain types? Say you legislate types that are easy to remove or desolve, ok well their mechanical properties suck and the device will be crappier now.

- How long does this need to be repairable? The reality these days is that a lot of PCBs are cheaper and/or easier to just scrap and replace ... so do I now have to keep repair stock? How much? For how long? What if I run out? Am I now obligated to spin up a 1 million dollar production line to make a few very uneconomic spares?

I could go on ALL day. How do you legislate all of that? Cause the parts that don't now have to go through the courts. Now it's just a big steaming mess that doesn't work AND it's complicated AND you have many smart engineers, who just want to get paid and go home and smart lawyers to circumvent it.

2) I know this might be very unpopular to say on HN, but the reality is that MOST (not all) of what companies do that makes things "unrepairable" is mainly because it's a) cheaper or b) securing the supply chain against counterfeiters because counterfeits devalue your brand and also you don't want to be on the hook for repairing really good counterfeits (and I have personally experienced the latter).

3) The "good warranty" solution is utilising an internal manufacturer calculus that already exists. Right now it is "tuned" to if US market => it only has to last a year + 1 day. Then "not our problem". In a "hand wavy based on experienced way" it's easier to get change by just shifting the goal posts (longer warranty).

4) I applaud you on fixing the items yourself but while it was fine for you, the quality probably wouldn't have passed on my production line. I have also observed many of those little phone repair shops do work and every single one I would have booted off my line. I am yet to see a single one of them use proper ESD protection (in any modern factory you are not even allowed inside without ESD gear). Sure they fixed it for you, but some other customers phone is now a walking wounded. I guarantee it.

I found this article very illustrative about just how clueless, many people, even "right to repair" proponents are about the systems that they are trying to regulate: https://www.theverge.com/2022/5/21/23079058/apple-self-servi... Yes, that jig Apple supplied, that's what it takes these days. Modern production and repair lines are soooo tuned for efficiency it's insane. That tuning introduces complexity which then goes through the roof for repairing stuff outside of said line. It's why often it's cheaper and quicker to throw parts out and replace it. We've gotten THAT good.

Finally, I actually think it is actually rather insulting how many people believe that fixing something like a phone PROPERLY is "not that hard" and "any tech can do it". I see these comments as demeaning and insulting to the experienced people working on these production and repair lines who are often underpaid and treated very poorly.

5) Right to repair will not solve e-waste. My opinion is it won't make much of a dent. E-waste is a separate issue that absolutely also needs to be tackled by compulsory recycling. And actually, in the case of phones and many other consumer electronics, making them "repairable" can mean more resources being used. People (especially on HN) bemoan glue being used. Modern glues are great. They're used because they speed up assembly, are fairly easy to apply and make stuff thinner and mechanically simpler. Say you ban glue as a part of Right to repair legislation, I guarantee the screws and extra plastic you need instead use more material and have more embodied energy. You've actually now increased the amount of e-waste.

Finally, I think fundamentally, rather than being repairable, I think most people just want these devices to last longer (so again just force that through long warranties). And it can be done. I have personally worked on products with a 10 year "official" warranty and a "quiet internal" 20 year one. It wasn't an exotic product or industry either. In my opinion, repairing a thing is the ambulance at the bottom of the hill, it should not have broken in the first place. Why mandate the ambulance in all cases when you can mandate the minimisation of pushing stuff off the cliff instead?

Thank you for taking the time to write all this, it's very informative. It sounds messy, but then again I can't help but feel that every single point you mentioned is quite complex because we managed to reach a point in time where a device designed with repairability first, seems such a farcical concept.

We might have become really precise with manufacturing, and produced beautifully thin and solid devices. But the fact that Apple needs to ship a 79-pound/36kg repair kit just to change the battery of a phone, doesn't really demostrate how clueless people are about the repair process, on the contrary it demonstrates the absurd lengths Apple is willing to go just to mock open access to tools, parts and processes.

Regarding longer warranties, that would be an excellent step, but warranties won't solve the same problems, as they will never cover user caused damage which I'm guessing is the cause for most repairs.

What if we started with the obligation of the manufacturer to provide access to reasonably priced parts along with schematics, without altering their manufacturing process? Would that be an acceptable first step towards making repairs more accessible?

> on the contrary it demonstrates the absurd lengths Apple is willing to go just to mock open access to tools, parts and processes.

Emphasis added.

I think the absurd metal gymnastics HN'ers are willing to go through to justify things they don't understand is just... I can't even.

You seem to be the naivest one here, talking the bullshit Apple feeds you, when all that's required to remove the battery is a hairdryer, some prying tools and a bit of skills.

They actually are mocking the whole thing by pretending their bizarre contraption is needed, when many have tried and showed first hand it was faster to do it the "old" way.

The fact that you don't see that makes your opinion rather unsavory. But you do you I guess.

> Thank you for taking the time to write all this, it's very informative.

No problem :) I take the issue with short life products and e-waste very seriously and have given it much thought.

> It sounds messy, but then again I can't help but feel that every single point you mentioned is quite complex because we managed to reach a point in time where a device designed with repairability first, seems such a farcical concept.

I think we are also just at a natural point in technology where it is just hard to repair some of these things. Either we eschew these new technologies completely and loose their benefits to keep repairability, or accept that a lot of it isn't just repairable and we need:

1) Strong laws to protect the consumers investment in devices

2) Properly fund research into e-waste recycling

3) Mandate e-waste recycling and support specialist waste companies to do that.

We're literally counting atoms worth of materials to cut costs, reduce sizes and increase performance.

> We might have become really precise with manufacturing, and produced beautifully thin and solid devices. But the fact that Apple needs to ship a 79-pound/36kg repair kit just to change the battery of a phone, doesn't really demostrate how clueless people are about the repair process, on the contrary it demonstrates the absurd lengths Apple is willing to go just to mock open access to tools, parts and processes.

But this is my point. I don't think Apple was being absurd. This is just want it takes these days and almost all people don't appreciate that a jig like that is what it takes. And it's not even all that complex or expensive compared to jigs I have worked on.

Even many hardware engineers don't have a full grasp. Many these days have never been on a CM floor because a lot of it is abstracted away for them. And/Or they have never really talked to the mechanical engineers making jigs etc. because of internal company siloing.

> Regarding longer warranties, that would be an excellent step, but warranties won't solve the same problems, as they will never cover user caused damage which I'm guessing is the cause for most repairs.

This is a good point and my best idea for that is that, as apart of the warranty, the consumer gets one free/cost at percentage of purchase price (maybe 30%), no questions asked repair/replace for accidental damage. Simple, it's the manufacturers problem and they'll work out that optimum point between: make it more rugged for drops vs not rugged enough for surviving being run over by a car. (We already have standards for drops, water etc. They'll just get made more robust).

> What if we started with the obligation of the manufacturer to provide access to reasonably priced parts along with schematics, without altering their manufacturing process? Would that be an acceptable first step towards making repairs more accessible?

I have a very long, 2 part post, (sorry) to a another commenter which I think addresses this.

Edits: formatting

> I could go on ALL day. How do you legislate all of that?

"Everything required to replace or repair parts of the device should be fully, clearly and publicly documented, including all discrete part numbers, tools, jigs, etc. Any parts that are manufactured only by the device's manufacturer under patent protection or trade secret must be available for purchase."

If jigs are required, they must at least fully describe the jig so that people can make their own, if required.

You can use glue as long as it can be removed without damaging the device, and the type of glue is documented and available for purchase.

Mandating a level of skill is not necessary. If a repair requires high skill, like desoldering, they can find someone to do that repair, or sell the device to someone willing to do that repair before purchasing a new device. The level of skill required to repair a device will become known, although I'm also not opposed to requiring that be declared up front.

As you said, the scope of possible designs is infinite, so there exist designs that can satisfy all of these requirements.

The whole point is to expand the lifecycle of devices and create a repair and recycling industry, rather than the existing limited lifecycle of manufacturer->consumer->ewaste.

> Finally, I actually think it is actually rather insulting how many people believe that fixing something like a phone PROPERLY is "not that hard" and "any tech can do it".

Perfect is the enemy of the good. If your phone is a brick and an improper fix makes it useful at a much lower cost than a whole new phone, that's all that matters. Sorry, but your comment just sounds super elitist. Even if only 50% of devices are successfully repaired because they're being done "improperly", that's still a 50% reduction in ewaste.

> and also you don't want to be on the hook for repairing really good counterfeits (and I have personally experienced the latter).

Then don't. I don't see why the manufacturer should be on the hook to repair a counterfeit.

> 5) Right to repair will not solve e-waste. My opinion is it won't make much of a dent.

I disagree 200%. I've repaired countless phones, TVs, computers and other devices for myself and friends and family, all without help of legislation that would ensure the availability of parts and instructions, and the right to repair would only expand this trend. Most people wouldn't do this themselves even with the right to repair, but they are almost certainly within 2 degrees of separation of someone that would.

You're also looking at this very myopically through a specific tech industry lens and ignoring one of the main motivations of the right to repair: super expensive farm equipment. John Deere has a stranglehold on farmers who tend to be very DIY, and this has been driving up their costs and sometimes even driving them out of business because they can't access service or parts at affordable prices, and they can't repair the devices themselves. Breaking this stranglehold would be huge.

PART 1/2 (I have learned HN has a max comment length):

Please don't misunderstand. I would want something love something like right-to-repair for phones to succeed. I am trying to emphasise that, from an insiders perspective, good warranties are a MUCH better way to achieve most of the same goals.

(apologies in advance for being verbose)

(Please note, I am intentionally using the voice of "the cynical manufacturer", it will sound aggressive, but it is not meant to be aggressive to the poster. I am trying to show how you CANNOT give them even an INCH and right to repair legislation for something like a phone gives too many inches.)

To answer your points:

> "Everything required to replace or repair parts of the device should be fully, clearly and publicly documented, including all discrete part numbers, tools, jigs, etc. Any parts that are manufactured only by the device's manufacturer under patent protection or trade secret must be available for purchase."

No problem:

* Here is a part number: XXX-12345678-FF. It's for a part purchased from a 2nd tier supplier in Taiwan and it's one of a kind. It is now end of life btw so you can't actually purchase it. By the letter of the law, I have met your requirement. Spirit of the law? Well maybe not. Either way, see you in court if you don't like it (and who's going to litigate? the consumer? the government?)

* Did you mean that it should still be purchasable? Well you didn't include that in your legislation but say you do somehow. Now I argue: Don't worry, there's grey market seller in Hong Kong who'll sell them to you for $100 each (original cost was $1 with MOQ 10,000 btw). I have met your requirements.

Still not what you meant I assume? Maybe we legislate: "The manufacturer has to hold enough inventory to supply parts for repairs" Sure ok. Who's paying for keeping this in inventory? Can I on-charge that to the buyer of said spare part? If not, well I guess the phone is going to cost more now because I need to recover that cost. (Bigger warehouses are not free. I also don't keep my own stock, my Contract Manufacturer (CM) in Taiwan does that for me and they'll be charging a fee). Also you didn't specify how long I have to keep this for. I think 1 year + 1 day is fair. Don't like that? See you in court again.

Maybe you now you also legislate "for the reasonable expected life of the product". What's that? I think still it's 1 year + 1 day. See you in court again if you don't like it.

Fine! let's legislate: "... for at least 3 years". Oh I'm sorry, there was an unforseen problem and we went through our inventory-for-repair much faster than expected. There's none left and nobody makes this part anymore. Nobody makes an equivalent either. What now? I hope the customer is entitled to a refund, but (again) you don't have that in your right-to-repair legislation ...

Let's torture this even more: "if for unforseen circumstances manufacturer can no longer supply spare parts, customer will be entitled to a full refund" ...

This sounds awfully like "full repair/replacement warranty of 3 years" but the route you've taken is much more tortured.

> If jigs are required, they must at least fully describe the jig so that people can make their own, if required. Sure thing. Setting aside the fact that jigs can also constitute trade secrets, here is your jig:

* Here is the CAD for the jig you need. We built it for 10k USD because of a bulk discount. Bespoke for you it will probably be 25k USD.

* You also need this air compressor to drive it 2k USD.

* You will need this PXI-e from National Instruments 10k USD.

* That PXI-e needs these two DAQ cards 5k USD each.

* I guess I need to supply the software for that too? For free? Again is that actually fair? What if it has trade secrets? But sure, let's say I have to give it to you for free...

* Well it's NI, you need a license to drive all this stuff and to use the modules we have. 5K USD per year.

So now Joe's Corner Mobile Phone repairs can happily repair your 300 USD phone. He just needs that jig which totals 57k USD BOM and 5K per year on going. But I published it all, he can build it himself. I have met your requirements.

Jigs shouldn't cost that much you say? Well they can and do (and even more). That's the reality. Are you going to ban them? Regulate them too? It's the equivalent of banning / regulating a compiler (ie absolutely absurd).

> You can use glue as long as it can be removed without damaging the device, and the type of glue is documented and available for purchase. I already addressed this in my earlier comment. The easily removable glue is crap. But sure here is the glue part number: GLU-123678-JJ Mfg: GOOD-GLUE-GUYS Btw it's made using a trade secret formula from GOOD-GLUE-GUYS. Do I have to keep it in inventory as well. Or are you going to make GOOD-GLUE-GUYs (who is based outside the US) publish their trade secret formula? We just have the same issue as above. Do I also need to supply to you the special oven for it? Or is the part number enough? (btw that oven weighs 1 ton and is 500k USD, but you got the part number).

> Mandating a level of skill is not necessary. If a repair requires high skill, like desoldering, they can find someone to do that repair, or sell the device to someone willing to do that repair before purchasing a new device. The level of skill required to repair a device will become known, although I'm also not opposed to requiring that be declared up front. If you don't mandate skill requirements, then a manufacturer will just happily NOT make ANY adjustments to make a thing "more-repairable" whatever that means. Example that meets your legislative requirements:

You need to swap the CPU it's a 0.1mm pitch 2048 ball BGA. Here's the part number. Please note: this is a stacked design where the RAM chip (also 2048 balls) is soldered ON TOP of the physical CPU. The practical reality is that few humans on Earth, with very expensive equipment can do this. Joe's Corner Mobile Repairs is not one of them. The reality in manufacturing is that this faulty board would be binned because cost+time+risk means it's not worth it. If it was mega expensive then a fix maybe attempted, either using a very highly skilled technician and an xray afterwards to verify OR the tech removes the part and you run it through the 1-10million USD SMT line with a special program and IF you are very confident in your process engineering you might decide you don't need to xray it. All that said, I have met your requirements as stated in your proposed legislation, but it is of no practical use to you. Perhaps we just swap the whole motherboard? Well you didn't legislate that. Say you do somehow (skill requirements perhaps?), now it's 50% of the cost of a new device because the reality is that that's where most of the cost is. Put on top of that labour at a FAIR price to Joe in his corner repair store in the US and it's just not worth it now. A consumer will just buy a new device (without being compensated by the manufacturer).

Edits: Formatting

PART 2/2:

> Perfect is the enemy of the good. If your phone is a brick and an improper fix makes it useful at a much lower cost than a whole new phone, that's all that matters. Sorry, but your comment just sounds super elitist. Even if only 50% of devices are successfully repaired because they're being done "improperly", that's still a 50% reduction in ewaste.

This is nothing to do with perfect. This is serviced to an acceptable standard. I don't mean to sound elitist, but I make no apology for defending my workers who are like highly trained mechanics that will properly assemble / repair your car. Joe's corner mechanic using cooking oil in your car engine rather than 20-5W is not an acceptable repair IMO. But if cooking oil gets you 50% success in repair and you're happy with that, well all power to you. I don't think most regular people would agree though.

> Then don't. I don't see why the manufacturer should be on the hook to repair a counterfeit.

I should have explained more: These counterfeits in particular (and many of them for modern products) are sooo good WE couldn't tell that they were counterfeit initially. It manifested as a % increase in the number of failures in the field. We thought it was a genuine QA issue and wasted 100s of hours of engineer and QA time and easily tens of thousands of dollars trying to figure this out.

We eventually developed a special jig to tell the difference to deny warranty claims. But issues like this is why manufacturers are and will continue to go hard on protecting their supply chains which normally also means the device is harder to repair especially for an outside party to repair.

Btw, The open documentation of everything for right-to-repair, while laudable, it is something for a fantasy world. Companies will fight tooth and nail to stop that information getting out and the politicians will oblige them. Also, you just gave the counterfeiters the keys to the kingdom for making fakes and fake repair parts. You're not going to "legislate them away" because they're not in the US or any country with decent courts, laws and IP protection.

Closer to home, I am trying to develop my own hardware products. I am a one person team. Now you are going to force me to publish a big chunk of my IP? You've just killed me by counterfeit and giving the keys to the big companies who will squish me. You think I have the money to litigate against a big company? It just means I won't bother. You've just entrenched the big companies even more. Fighting both of these issues requires barriers like lasering off part numbers, spare parts with encryption keys etc. because the problem is THAT big. No it's not a perfect barrier, but just like parking your car in a bad neighbourhood: park next to a better car and have a steering lock so that when the thief comes a long they go for the easier target. It's a stupid cat and mouse game, but it is what it is.

> I disagree 200%. I've repaired countless phones, TVs, computers and other devices for myself and friends and family, all without help of legislation that would ensure the availability of parts and instructions, and the right to repair would only expand this trend. Most people wouldn't do this themselves even with the right to repair, but they are almost certainly within 2 degrees of separation of someone that would.

Again laundable and more power to you but you are super unique and niche. Also I personally don't want your repaired-with-vegetable-oil car engine thank you. Further, you fundamentally cannot repair something for infinite time and the technology for something like a phone moves so fast that that prospect is silly. You are merely delaying the item making it into waste. It's going to end up in landfill eventually. It's MAYBE possible that you will reduce the amount getting in there, which is nice but it doesn't address the fundamental gap in our waste management of e-waste where the ONLY (IMO) proper solution is material recycling to fully close the loop. Yes it will need to subsidised (maybe in an ideal world eventually that won't be needed). But, to me, paying that subsidy is preferable to adding to our debt of biosphere destruction.

Btw, all that stock the manufacturer had to keep for repairing stuff for right-to-repair ... you know where any excess is going when it's not needed AND the accountants can write it off? Straight to landfill. To me, refunding the customer seems preferable.

So again, right-to-repair MIGHT reduce e-waste, it will certainly not eliminate it.

>You're also looking at this very myopically through a specific tech industry lens and ignoring one of the main motivations of the right to repair: super expensive farm equipment. John Deere has a stranglehold on farmers who tend to be very DIY, and this has been driving up their costs and sometimes even driving them out of business because they can't access service or parts at affordable prices, and they can't repair the devices themselves. Breaking this stranglehold would be huge. This is why I caveated my initial post with "won't ever work for something like a consumer phone". Is John Deere one of the main motivations now? That's not what I've observed in media. Maybe that's where it started, but it has grown to encompass many more devices like a mobile phone.

I have many four letter words for John Deere and it is not an industry I have worked in. But again I think a solid, compulsory, no carve outs, warranty would help immensely. Personally I think 25 years is fair for a tractor. Maybe slap in a SLA too like 1 week maximum time to repair. Do that and now you've just made all the issues, with spare part costs, reliability, distribution, inventory, a 3rd party repair network, fabrication by authorised 3rd parties etc. you've made it ALL John Deere's problem. All those managers, lawyers and bean counters will suddenly be driving the engineers and ops people in a direction that (IMO) is fair to the consumer. And don't worry they'll be just fine. They'll rejig those spreadsheets and solve the problem VERY quickly.

They will kick and scream but you've given them very little leeway AND you've given politicians and advocates an easy moral argument: "We think 25 years is fair, especially since there are tractors that are 100+ years old that STILL work just fine."

Edits: Formatting

> won't ever work for something like a consumer phone

Fairphone makes great repairable phones - I own one and couldn't be happier.

Reinforcing this. Yes, it is slightly bulkier than say a Pixel, but for that you get a phone where everything is screwed using standard parts, nothing is glued and the battery can be swapped without any tools. So building a repairable phone is perfectly possible. Yes, it has downsides, but if as a society we really want to go towards less waste, this is the way to go.

Fairphone is a great product and I have a lot of respect for them trying to do what they're doing. But the sad brutal reality is that it's a very niche in the grand scheme of things and won't change things. I equate it a bit to "The year of the Linux Desktop" happening making everything better.

We have to be honest with ourselves about this, recognise how the deck is stacked against us and respond accordingly.

Linux won though :) "the year of the Linux Desktop" is a joke that started over two decades ago to dismiss Linux and OSS as a delusion of a few nerds but now we have Android devices everywhere, every server on earth using it, supercomputers/HPC clusters, game consoles, and even on desktop it keeps growing. Those who were in the FLOSS community back in the late 90s and early 00s probably remember how most people literally laughed at you and would call you crazy just for believing that things could be different.

The idea of a phone that can have its battery easily replaced is several orders of magnitude less crazy in my opinion.

The problem with Fairphone is that the price just isn't right. I get that they don't have enough volume but they should find a way to make it viable at a competitive price otherwise it is useless.

Who cares that it is easier to repair if you can buy 2 similar phones for the same price?

The issue with other phone manufacturers is not that they are inherently hard to repair, even if some phones could use some improvements at the design stage. The issue is that even if you want to repair and have the knowledge/skills to do so, it will be very hard to source correct parts at a worthwhile price.

The big brands are knowingly killing repairability by preventing 3rd party parts in the name of "Intellectual property", parts pairing/locking (with serials/chips) and finally not offering parts at a reasonable price even when they are forced to.

The Apple repair program is a farce precisely because of that, even if you are willing to do the work, it will cost you just as much as it would in an Apple Store just because they sell the parts at a ridiculous price while making it so that you can't get a replacement elsewhere because the phone will not work or have reduced functionality if you don't get a part from them. It is disgusting predatory anti-competitive behavior and buying Fairphones won't solve much of the problem because peoples will still buy iPhone for obvious secondary reasons.

I like less and less this system where we can never aim directly for our goal (reparability in this case), but we must instead trigger some side-effect through complex legislation in order to push our corporate overlords to do what we wanted in the first place, through their greed.

I would think for most people the goal is some combination of spending less money on gadgets and less environmental impact from gadgets, with repairability just being a means to that end. In which case I would think the commenters proposed suggestion is more direct not less.

> with repairability just being a means to that end.

You know those "prepper" types that use "simple technology" so they can be sure they can survive the nuclear apocalypse? They eschew any and all electronics, then build everything using modern high pressure hydraulic systems with very tight machine tolerances and hoses made from materials that cannot be manufactured without an entire modern industrial supply chain? Their whole rig ends up being not only very inefficient but also does nothing to make the apocalypse more survivable.

In theory building everything with hydraulics is just a means to end of surviving the apocalypse, but deep down, you know they just liked playing with hydraulics (who doesn't--hydraulic machines are cool!) and backed their way into the justification.

The right-to-repairers remind me of those people. They got this idea in their head that repairable electronics equals some combination of eco-cred, lower-cost and fuck-the-man. You can't really reason with them because it's a religious belief. They "just know" that repairable electronics result in cheaper, less e-waste products, and no amount of evidence will ever convince them otherwise.

Their goal is not cheaper, more environmentally-friendly electronics. That's merely the justification. The actual goal is cosplaying electronics repair technician.

How do you propose we avoid the huge waste of resources and pollution caused by the lack of durability of electronics?

That system is just called capitalism, no? The whole point is to employ greed as a (powerful) motivator to achieve desired outcomes.

I don't see how that's going to work when greed gives a motivation to do the exact opposite of what we want.

Mind, the fact that we have to push for repairability is an issue caused by greed in the first place, as logic would dictate that a good product is designed with durability in mind.

Why do you think that the factor that caused the issue is going to help us solve it?

Or not we just need more Fairphones and less Samsung.

> The most effective way to approach this problem is known and proven: mandate long (I think 5 years is fair) 100% repair/replace/refund waranty periods with no cost to the consumer (including shipping).

FWIW, this is basically AppleCare+, but of course you pay a small monthly fee for it. Phone breaks, you take it in, they fix it within a day or two no questions asked. It would be great if we lived in the world you're describing, but in the absence of that, I'm content with a low-end iPhone + $3.99 a month insurance.

Why not both?

> I've never had "repairability" raised to me as an engineer.

What kinds of hardware do you engineer exactly? Tons of companies have repair technicians on staff. I'm sure every datacenter in the world has individuals frequently swapping faulty parts out of servers, and those servers are often designed to keep that kind of maintenance from being a chore.

It's one thing if you're talking about board level repair, but part swapping is something that end users do by themselves all the time. I've certainly swapped phone batteries before. I've helped friends replace their cracked screens.

In fairness however, for products that are being engineered for portability first there is certainly a case to be made for keeping things compact at the expense of reparability. That certainly doesn't explain away the behavior of companies that deliberately hinder repairs by blocking replacement parts, or making replacement parts impossible to obtain. That NEEDS to be illegal, and that is a big part of what right to repair is about.

> I've never had "repairability" raised to me as an engineer.

Yeah, that sounds like the real problem from the engineering side of things.

If the business types did decide it was a priority, and told you to figure it out, I'm pretty sure you would. :)

Mass market engineering (of any kind) always steers towards producing cheapest products possible as long they're still tolerably functional. In other words, the cheapest crapjob of a bugfest wins as long as its happy path still works well enough that consumers still consume, keeping the money flowing. There are no sustainable mass (large and non-specialized) markets for high-quality high-complexity products, they consistently spawn then get killed by competition from all the cheap junk.

How's the proposed 5 years 100% repair/replace/refund warranty is going to fix this core problem, rather than just generate more e-waste that's meant to get even more frequently replaced (as mandated by law, where now you're just told to fuck off) as it fails? Sure, some most glaring issues are probably going to get fixed, but the overall principle suggests that it's more likely cheap junk will get even more cheaper - cheaper to replace - than reliable, with more customer-hostile junk attached (ads to cover the costs, killing interop to sell licenses, etc), continuing the enshittification.

I strongly suspect that it'll primarily affect the money flows, not the product qualities.

Also I feel like repairing is often not the most efficient way to correct a problem with someone's phone. The "right to repair" movement was focused on one of the least inherently repairable things people own.

I would rather have a phone that lasts 1 year though, I don't want to pay extra for one that lasts 5 years. Why should it be illegal to build phones for people like me who upgrade more frequently than every 5 years (and most Americans, median is 2.5 years)?

Why five years? I have plenty of consumer electronics including phones, tablets, laptops, and computers that keep on trucking well past five years. Why should anything be turned into junk until it's absolutely necessary?

The point is, I OWN the device. It's mine. If I can find someone with the expertise to keep it running past its intended life, that should be looked at favorably. But Apple, Samsung, and many other companies are actively preventing feasible repairs based on unreasonable and arbitrary cooked-up "company policies." Attaching serial numbers to parts and making them inoperable until they're blessed by the manufacturer is a racket and everyone knows it.

If I can manage to keep my iPad working as a photo frame for another 40 years, how does that hurt anyone?

> Why five years? I have plenty of consumer electronics including phones, tablets, laptops, and computers that keep on trucking well past five years. Why should anything be turned into junk until it's absolutely necessary?

I picked five years half arbitrarily and half what I think is fair. Perhaps what most people think is fair is a lower or higher number.

> The point is, I OWN the device. It's mine. If I can find someone with the expertise to keep it running past its intended life, that should be looked at favorably.

Why as a company owner should I have to support the chance of you wanting to repair your device in 10 years? I have another big post in two parts where I try to illustrate that it's just not practical technologically and legally => it's why I proposed good long warranties. You just cannot give these companies an inch. Right-for-repair legislation will just be messy and give them too many inches to weasel out of it.

> But Apple, Samsung, and many other companies are actively preventing feasible repairs based on unreasonable and arbitrary cooked-up "company policies." Attaching serial numbers to parts and making them inoperable until they're blessed by the manufacturer is a racket and everyone knows it.

This will be harsh, and probably unpopular on HN, but in ALMOST all cases these steps are not put in to prevent repairability. Nobody cares about repairability. This is not some romantic fight of the big evil company screwing the little guy out of repairability. Repairability doesn't register on the radar. They don't care. These measures are taken to protect the supply chain against counterfeit parts and counterfeit products because they have a brand to protect. It's as simple as that.

> If I can manage to keep my iPad working as a photo frame for another 40 years, how does that hurt anyone?

It doesn't. I'm not sure why you think I implied it does sorry.

Edits: Spelling and formatting

And there's the down votes. I sincerely ask the downvoters to please read my other lengthy posts on this subject in this thread.