Hopefully such things bring forced availability of rare spare parts. If cookie cutter capacitors break, that's nothing really since you can just order them on Mouser et al.
But if a more special part breaks, say a custom voltage regulator to a game console (just since I saw a video on that fail yesterday), I would like for a repair center to be able to buy one such for a reasonable price and have the 500$ console repaired for perhaps 100$ - not scrap it.
I fear the replacement parts for such a repair will be the entire power supply pcb or enclosure as oppose to the discrete failed components. Therefore complying with the law but likely still expensive compared to new.
I suspect the multitude of little plastic catches, clips, switches, levers etc that everything contains now are the major source of appliances being junked.
My ~£300 Tannoy powered subwoofer for my home theatre failed recently.
They refused to honour the 10 year warranty because my proof of purchase wasn't in the right format or some such. Surely proof is proof? I paid the same money as everyone else.
Well, luckily for me, I have a degree in Electronic Engineering, so a week or so of reverse engineering and a few hundred £s in test equipment later I replaced the 20p Schottky diode which has failed and I have a working sub.
First manufacturers need to put their money where their mouth is regarding warranties, not have stupid obtuse get out clauses.
Secondly, fuck Tannoy, and all associated brands, they just lost a customer for life over this, so much for buying "British" as a Brit, I'll vote with my wallet.
Taking brand suggestions for future purchases who treat their customers a little better.
I can't verify this, other than via the stories specifics make it sound believable, and I've had similar experiences elsewhere. I too will never buy a tannoy product again.
The door shelves in our crappy fridge at home have all gradually cracked and split and are held in place by messes of superglue and transparent Gorilla tape. Fed up with this, I priced up replacing them last week.
Part of that cost is molded plastic is cheap only while you have the molds. Once the fridge goes out of production they make a few for spares and then recycle the molds.
The solution to this is to address how spare parts must be handled. This is not easy, either you figure expected lifetime of the shelves vs rest of the fridge, and then order enough - but if you get it wrong you are still out. Or you keep the molds, which also implies equipment to use the molds - but that wears out over time as well and the new model might not use the old molds.
One is expensive, but most of the costs is setup/teardown so you just produce a bunch (perhaps 1000) for the warehouse when supply runs low. That is how companies that keep their molds function, but you pay for them to store the mold and have a warehouse with all the supply in, so spare parts are always a lot more expensive after full production has stopped.
Don't confuse spare parts with maintenance parts. If there are wear parts (filters, bearings...) that are expected to be replaced regularly there is a lot more turn over of the parts, and so everything is planned ahead around keeping the right amount of production going. These parts tend to be more industry standard parts bought off the shelf from a supplier that has other customers for the same part so your part order might go to the supplier who just puts a different label on the standard part and ships it to you.
I appreciate some of the rationale for the cost, however the fridge itself is less than five years old.
The solution here would be standardised fridge door shelf types, or better yet - sturdier designs that don't gradually crack when the door is shut 'a little jovially', billiarding glass jars around... .
Standardization is nice in theory, but I'm not sure if it is practical - designers like to make silly little changes for branding reasons all the time. Which is why your 5 year old shelf is probably out of production anyway.
As for sturdier designs: that is a design feature you need to be willing to pay for. Make sure you check on that in the next fridge and tell others. (Price is not a guide to quality - often but not always cheaper fridges are bought by those who buy enough to care about value and quality is a part of value, while the more expensive ones are targeted at people who buy fancy features and don't know to think about quality - but this is a maybe not a guide)
For sure, but if there were an ISO standard for fridge doors, I could at least get options that perhaps whilst not exactly the same as what I have aesthetically, would fit functionally.
As an ex/sometime-designer myself, I can appreciate why they'd want to make silly little changes ;)
And yes, as I admitted in my first post here - it IS a crappy fridge. I have only myself to blame.
This kind of stuff is how government “incentives” end up essentially banning devices with such fancy parts because the companies will realize complying would be taking a loss so they just stop participating.
I think the EU regs have tried to avoid that by specifying the requirements of spares availability case by case. For example, the requirements for washing machines are in C(2019) 2124, annex II. It says:
manufacturers, importers or authorised representatives of household washing machines and household washer-dryers shall make available to professional repairers at least the following spare parts, for a minimum period of ten years after placing the last unit of the model on the market:
* motor and motor brushes;
* transmission between motor and drum;
* pumps;
* shock absorbers and springs;
* washing drum, drum spider and related ball bearings (separately or bundled);
* heaters and heating elements, including heat pumps (separately or bundled);
* piping and related equipment including all hoses, valves, filters and aquastops (separately or bundled);
Thanks for sharing this, though I think it’s probably even worse because now they get to essentially play favorites with their regulations which is a major breeding ground for corruption.
We also need specific exceptions to DMCA 1201-style laws (most countries copypasted the 1201 language) to allow circumvention for repair purposes, and specifically allow distribution of circumvention tools in cases where first-party repair is no longer available. If you don't service console disc drives anymore, I should legally be able to tell everyone how to unlock their disc drives so they can be swapped with spares.
(For the record: Most 1201 exceptions do NOT cover tools, under the idea that lawful circumvention will be carried out by entities that can do their own RE work.)
That will make everything more expensive since manufacturers will have to have a huge stock of spare parts, probably most of them are not going to be used ever.
Why can't they just make a rule that people can fix things and that's it. The whole problem is not with spare parts to washing machines but with companies like apple not letting you open their devices intentionally, this is the problem they had to deal with. It is the same thing like this cookie message stupidity.
Would be great if they defined what is a spare part. Somehow I have a feeling that this is just a PR to shut right to repair campaigns down by saying "look we have implemented this, what else do you want?" Reality will be you still won't be able to buy individual custom ICs with their datasheets but whole PCBs at a prices only slightly cheaper than a new product.
Only a matter of time before they modify the Law to introduce a catch that makes it practically worthless.
A - A classification system that makes defines how "easy" it is to repair something, but necessarily doesn't mean that you or I can repair it at home.It will be "easy" IF you have the right 50,000 GBP tool.
B - Modify right to repair as good for the environment rule. There will be an escape clause that says that right to repair can be suspended, if the product is very eco-friendly (or needs specialized, exotic materials for construction). Manufacturers will take this route by claiming that they use "exotic" materials and therefoere cannot allow users to repair it at home.
Given how much of EU innovation is bogged down by regulatory capture, I am extremely skeptical of this (note, I know EU/UK are separated, but nevertheless, lobbying is lobbying, universally)
I don't have high hopes if laws are essentially written by big corporations (still tax loopholes have not been closed, barriers to entry increase for small business etc)
> Given how much of EU innovation is bogged down by regulatory capture, I am extremely skeptical of this (note, I know EU/UK are separated, but nevertheless, lobbying is lobbying, universally)
That‘s probably how the concept of „legitimate interest“ made its way into the GDPR law, make it practically worthless, with the single upside of making people more aware of cross-site tracking.
Another example of half-assed EU law: EU data roaming. Given that EU is all about the free mobility of people, the data roaming „fair use policy“ makes no sense. If we‘re pretending to be in a single market, why don‘t we have a single market for telecommunication services? I can order stuff from amazon.fr and have it delivered, yet I can‘t have a mobile phone contract from say... a Spanish company.
It's mostly the Irish DPC dragging feet, from experience my own local DPC has been excellent and in one case a complaint of mine resulted in a fine. They just can't do anything about companies registered in Ireland.
The solution would be a small amendment of the GDPR that local DPCs can take matters in their own hands if 1-2 years pass without the other DPC doing anything about a violation. (This would still be different from the other DPC finding there to be no violation).
As predicted only few small players were fined and the giants continue as they please. EU can tick the box and claim PR points for "solving" the problem, when in reality you got more points of data breach and people are trained to click boxes without reading.
OTOH, removing things like "Warranty void if this sticker is removed" clauses means the pressure is on manufacturers to actually think carefully about how their product can be repaired.
Do you have any citations for your claim about EU innovation being bogged down by regulatory capture? In general, I've found that it's more like risk aversion in VC and other local cultural aspects before anything at an EU level comes into play.
Yeh I agree. I hear this a lot but my experience working has been that the US has waaaaayyyy more redtape and regulation stuff to deal with. Taxes for example or the absolute mess of applying for government grants.
Used to work for a small Ad-Tech firm in Germany. GDPR massively dented the business WITH NO BENEFITS to privacy. Advertisers still collect shit tons of data, your website performance is still crappy and the end result was that EU users now have to navigate MBs of Javascript popups, that try to trick me into selling data using dark patterns (blue highlight on accept all instead of Reject all).
All it succeeded was in consolidating the ad-tech space into a few big players and resulted in acquisitions of many small ad-tech firms.
An acquaintance of mine started a medical Tech firm and is now a consultant for dealing with govt. rules on medical stuff. Not sure why he quit , but I believe that consulting for dealing with German/EU bureaucracy maybe far more lucrative than having a medical startup in the EU.
Not to mention, despite the first world status, internet is Germany is Dog-shit. I mean worse than 3rd world crap. I was in Bangalore and I had way better internet 3 years ago.
Getting bogged down by the GDPR isn't demonstrating regulatory capture, just that the policy had a real impact (which may be what people actually want, even if that means it's a hassle for business).
The popups aren't compliant with either the intent or the letter of the law and instead pass under the legal theory of "if all of us are guilty none of us are guilty," which so far seems to be holding.
You could argue that it's not regulatory capture and instead it should be called enforcement capture or judicial capture, but absent that level of nuance I think the more accurate simplification should be "regulatory capture" rather than "real impact."
It's a shame there were no claimed benefits to privacy but adtech getting bogged down is very much an intended outcome.
The shitty cookie popups and what not are a symptom of how awful the adtech industry is. The alternative to getting bogged down was probably getting outright destroyed, and i don't think EU businesses are ready for that.
Adtech did not get bogged down. It just got consolidated into fewer, more invasive hands (google, instagram, amazon, etc), that have far more data and most importantly can mine and analyze it better than the 1000s of small ad tech firms.
It is praise, but it’s also obvious to anyone who knows anything about India. This person knew nothing, was my point. And yet they talk so much about related subjects.
And let's be honest. In spite of my aversion to the big telco magnates, Jio was a huge improvement over the status quo. I will agree that German internet is shit compared to Indian internet.
So, I'm going to argue that GDPR didn't go far enough, since the intended (or at least, implied) goal was to put Ad-Tech firms out of business. If your business cannot operate without spying on people, it shouldn't operate.
Being able to confuse people into "consenting" was an unintended consequence, but hopefully the European court system can put a stop to this dark pattern nonsense.
If everybody were such a pessimist, we'd never try to improve anything because there's a risk it might not always work or need adjustment in the future.
And a certain someone would also be there telling everyone not to go outside of the cave because there's tigers :)
If everybody was such an optimist... well, they would eventually become pessimists when they realized good intentions alone aren't enough, but there are few optimists with good plans.
Ok, there are also very few pessimists with good plans, but I didn't mean to turn you into a pessimist now ;)
> A - A classification system that makes defines how "easy" it is to repair something, but necessarily doesn't mean that you or I can repair it at home.It will be "easy" IF you have the right 50,000 GBP tool.
Louis Rossmann did a video tearing apart France's recent implementation of this from the perspective of an Apple repair technician. Despite serialized parts, soldered/glued components, and no available schematics, the MacBook Pro got a pretty good repair-ability score (7/10) because it was easy to open the chassis. Meanwhile, Apple certified repair partners (repair professionals, in theory) are so handicapped by the company that they can basically only replace screens and batteries.
> Despite serialized parts, soldered/glued components, and no available schematics, the MacBook Pro got a pretty good repair-ability score (7/10) because it was easy to open the chassis. Meanwhile, Apple certified repair partners (repair professionals, in theory) are so handicapped by the company that they can basically only replace screens and batteries.
This is precisely my point.
It has a 7/10 rating
yet,
serialized parts (probably locked down firmware as well)
no availability of parts
GLUE.
How dafuq is this exactly repairable, by you or I ?
I think this pretty well sums up the loophole. You have the right to repair... what? If I buy a macbook, do I get to replace the case? keyboard? These seem pretty reasonable. But what about the right to replace/repair the L1 cache? This is obviously a different story - it would be nice, but the part probably isn't manufactured by Apple (maybe it is on the new Silicon?). My point is that at some point, things start to get blurry, and it is in the manufacturers best interest to continue blurring these lines. I don't think we can reasonably expect the government to do a deep dive into every product category to work all of this out - what would this look like for cars, where safety is a concern?
I think having the law on the books is a move in the right direction, but I don't expect it to have teeth until te can figure out how to actually measure repairability. Maybe the EU could experiment with a supply chain approach like VAT, but for a repairability score? This also sounds fraught...
To specifically answer your question, I don't think anyone's advocating for users to be provided with parts and schematics to repair a faulty L1 cache on a CPU, or for the CPU to be designed to support that kind of repair.
Most "repairs" come in the form of replacing a component. Many products can be divided into components and those components can recursively be broken down into smaller components. At some point, though, a component cannot reasonably be further divided for the purpose of repair and peterlk appears to imply that a CPU is an example of such a component. Indeed, repairing a faulty L1 cache would probably require so much investment that even the manufacturer itself would not be able to justify such a repair.
> My point is that at some point, things start to get blurry, and it is in the manufacturers best interest to continue blurring these lines.
peterlk goes on to point out that manufacturers often use this fact to their advantage by convincing people that it's not practical to componetize bigger, more expensive parts for the sake of repair, such as the main board assembly on a laptop. In reality, component-level board repair is a practical solution for many repair scenarios, provided you can source the necessary components and schematics.
We lack objective criteria to determine what parts can reasonably be made "repairable" via componetization and manufacturers abuse that to confuse people. I myself thought component-level board repair was a dead end until I stumbled upon Rossmann's channel. I think both you and peterlk are getting to the same point: we need that criteria if we're going to reach the full potential of the right-to-repair movement.
Do they? Given that you later claim we don’t have the necessary criteria to determine repairability, this seems like an unsupportable claim.
I hear just as much from people obsessed with repair that confuses people in the other direction.
> I myself thought component-level board repair was a dead end until I stumbled upon Rossmann's channel. I think both you and peterlk are getting to the same point:
> we need that criteria if we're going to reach the full potential of the right-to-repair movement.
We do and we also need to understand the costs at scale.
Repairability may not be better overall if it comes at the expense of durability, or more use of materials.
It’s not at all obvious, for example, that we have the numbers to support say, making iPhones more repairable vs simply designing them to neeed fewer more expensive repairs and then recycle them when failed.
> Do they? Given that you later claim we don’t have the necessary criteria to determine repairability, this seems like an unsupportable claim.
They absolutely do. We don't have objective legal criteria, but Louis Rossmann's channel and business is a testament to how component-level board repair is not only viable, but very profitable. Apple (or most other computer manufacturers, for that matter) will never offer you something like that.
I think that criteria is necessary for legal action. Otherwise, right-to-repair could be dead on arrival (eg France's implementation) or go way too far (eg requiring a CPU's L1 cache to be replaceable). However, even without that criteria, it's plain to see that manufacturers are minimizing repair options as much as possible to extract profits.
> I hear just as much from people obsessed with repair that confuses people in the other direction.
Okay? There isn't any issue for which I can confidently claim to agree with everyone in the same camp as me. Right to repair is no different. I can only defend my own thoughts and statements.
> Repairability may not be better overall if it comes at the expense of durability, or more use of materials.
> It’s not at all obvious, for example, that we have the numbers to support say, making iPhones more repairable vs simply designing them to neeed fewer more expensive repairs and then recycle them when failed.
I agree completely. I do not want us to enact legislation which forces manufacturers to sacrifice quality and progress just for the sake of repair.
That said, there is clearly a lot of room for repair to become more accessible without changing designs or adding hardly any cost to the manufacturer. That is what I'd like to see addressed with right-to-repair.
Kind of. I mean, sure, I think it would be really neat to be able to replace the L1 cache myself, but this would probably necessitate a less efficient CPU. Is it fair to fault Apple for using an Intel CPU which itself has no mechanism for internal repair/replaceability? I think it is if we were able to apply the same standard to every product (this is where the VAT idea came from); then the repairability becomes the aggregate of all the parts used, and it's the manufacturer's job to pick repairable parts, but how far do you go?
Does it make sense to lower the repairability score because I can't replace the L1 cache? If the answer is "no", then what is the difference between an L1 cache replacement and a CPU replacement on a fully integrated motherboard (like Apple's new computers)? The answer in my mind is one of convention. Perhaps the solution to this is to enshrine the Von Neumann architecture as a legal standard. But this solution seems like it could limit innovation.
What about smaller components? If we follow this to the logical conclusion we cannot use integrated circuits at all, as each individual transistor must be replaceable.
The rules needs to be written in a way that allow things, like integrated circuits, to exist but at the same time prevent intentional preventing of repairability.
> The answer in my mind is one of convention. Perhaps the solution to this is to enshrine the Von Neumann architecture as a legal standard. But this solution seems like it could limit innovation.
Right - I think this is the issue. People cite cars as an example, but car architecture evolves much more slowly than computer architecture.
Arguably at the present, as we come up against Moore’s law limitations, architectural changes should be expected to increase.
Government mandated computer architecture sounds like a great way to completely cede technological advance.
"You have the right to repair... what?" - the key expectation is that the parts that wear out within 10 years or are commonly breakable (e.g. screens) should be replaceable. By this criteria, batteries and keyboards apply, but random solid state parts on boards and L1 cache does not.
I agree 100%, but have these sorts of guidelines been included in the right to repair bills that have been making the rounds here in the US?
They should be pretty common sense parts, but I'm not sure how they're actually determining these things in the bills which are being proposed. Do you have any more insight into what's being proposed?
I know there are some 15 states who've introduced legislation, but back in 2018, it was just hearings taking place. I haven't heard or seen any updates since then.
Nevermind the M1 - what about an Apple watch? I'm wildly out of my depth with this but I look at stuff like this teardown and X-ray of the Apple watch where they describe the distance between components in microns and think that maybe that's reasonably difficult to repair that component.
> Given how much of EU innovation is bogged down by regulatory capture, I am extremely skeptical of this (note, I know EU/UK are separated, but nevertheless, lobbying is lobbying, universally)
I share your scepticism about lobbying, was always mindful that Brussels in regards to the EU made lobbiests access to MEP's easier than the people they serve and all in one location - a lobbiyst dream that.
So be interesting how the EU and UK versions of this law diverge over time.
But however cynical I am, it's better than what we have now and from that, a start. How it goes from there will be future changes and debate down the line.
I certainly hope the whole green/eco/responsible ethos is used to drive thru improvements like this and shift away from disposable, cheap, just engineered enough to last a few years when a bit of extra cost would of made it last longer.
When everything is a commodity it's hard to see how this will be useful.
When an appliance (fridge, cooker, washing machine) breaks, it's cheaper to replace. I cannot see how repairing a TV will ever be cheaper than just replacing it since they are so cheap brand new.
This also applies to smartphones, none of the popular models have replaceable batteries so in the trash they go and they become worthless, even if the hardware could keep up for 10 years often the software is outdated, inseceure and not worth using.
I'll be hard pressed to believe this will result in anything tangible. The real test is if they can convince Apple to make Louis' job easier, wouldn't that be nice.
I've repaired all my appliances myself over the last 20+ years, to say it's cheaper to replace is just plain false, even today. Most faults are easy fixes like sensors or motors and even the higher end PCB replacements work out cheaper.
However! if you are not inclined to fix yourself then the costs to have someone else fix your appliances may not work out as cost effective.
That's fine. I'd rather give an old broken fridge for free to someone who'll actually fix it, than throw it away.
Like with old computer stuff. I go out of my way to find someone else who needs it, because 1) I hate the waste and environmental impact, and 2) in my poorer days I was the recipient of "old garbage computer stuff" as my only computer stuff.
I had an old shitty laptop with no battery, that I found an old motorcycle lead-acid battery I could hook up. With a couple of diodes I could even charge it through the laptop. I could never afford a real laptop, but this was a computer on the go for me.
A friend of mine couldn't afford batteries for his calculator, so he took a scrap power adapter and hooked it up to its battery terminals.
I'm fine with someone getting $50k of tooling and then being able to create a reuse market. Better to not need it, but it's also not realistic to have a law that mandates that all electronics must be repairable with a screwdriver and a pair of plyers.
This is a myth. It used to be that tools for SMD rework were expensive and inaccessible, but now you can get a good kit with a trinocular microscope for under $1000. It is still quite a bit, but reachable if you want to start small repair business in your community. I'd say bigger problem are high taxes and bureaucracy.
That's because this sort of legislation (in the UK and in the EU) is driven by superficial thinking and politics, not data-driven analysis and pragmatic considerations.
People go "why don't they just make things simpler to repair?" like it was an obvious solution to problems (real or perceived) whereas the reality is obviously much more complex.
Appliances are already quite durable and repairable. Making things 'more repairable' can increase cost and resources needed. Cost of labour and parts can quickly render repairs uneconomical even if they would be perfectly doable. Some devices are so integrated (e.g. TVs these days) that the very concept of 'repair' is almost meaningless. People do not necessarily want to repair a broken old device because there are better new ones available.
These are all competing considerations and the issue is therefore complex.
I would rather they focus on ease of recycling. The EU legislation has some measures on recycling but gets too much diverted by this "right to repair", IMHO.
> Making things 'more repairable' can increase cost and resources needed.
I don't think this is in dispute, is it?
The point is that manufacturers must now consider this cost in their calculations, rather than pass all the consequences on to the consumer without caring.
> People do not necessarily want to repair a broken old device
If the old device still has value, then both can happen - I can get a new device, and pass my old device on for repair and re-use.
> The point is that manufacturers must now consider this cost in their calculations, rather than pass all the consequences on to the consumer without caring.
If this was the goal, then simply taxing fossil fuels and other polluting sources would be the ideal and simple solution. How high would the taxes need to be? However high it takes to get pollution levels down to where they need to be. The actual cost of a new item would be properly reflected in the price, and therefore incentivize the purchasing of reusable and repairable items, which would incentivize manufacturers making reusable and repairable items.
Of course, that would bring the world’s economy to a half, as governments’ expectations and calculations are assumed on continuously increasing consumption.
I'm a bit lost. I don't see how this is relevant to the discussion at all.
Manufacturers already pay $ proportional to the amount of fossil fuels spent, and this doesn't cause them to consider future consequences on the consumer. They still think vendor lock-in and planned obsolescence are to their advantage.
Only because the true cost of fossil fuels and other pollution isn't reflected in the sale price to the end users, so it's often cheaper to buy new rather than repaired products.
If the true cost of pollution were pushed into the sale price for end users, end users would have to reduce their purchases of non repairable items, and consumers would then value repairability as a feature, incentivizing manufacturers to cater to that.
It's much easier to force the change this way than through figuring out the correct wording in legislation, which is bound to have loopholes and be subject to costly (time wise) legal conflicts.
The root of the issue is that things are so cheap, repairing them makes no sense, regardless of repair-ability. Manufacturers didn't one day decide to drop repair-ability. One did it, and found that they were not punished by consumers. In fact, they were probably rewarded by offering new "features". Then another manufacturer did it, then another, and so on. And obviously, it works. I just went to someone's house who was showing off their fancy new fridge with a see through door.
Of course, the very very root of the issue is humanity's excess consumption which is causing harm to the environment we live in, but as I wrote earlier, that faces insurmountable political headwinds.
Right to repair or upgrade may not make sense for all appliances, but for some it definitely does. For example, early 2010's Macbook Pro's remain perfectly usable when upgraded with SSD and more RAM, while more modern ones don't allow any upgrade whatsoever and will become obsolete much faster. For many electronic devices repairability is easy to implement, at least for a little extra cost, and is certainly more environmentally friendly than recycling them.
So, I think for many classes of products right to repair makes sense, and should be implemented even if it raises the cost of buying a new device, since the boost in second-hand options will eventually be good for people who don't have so much money.
Recycling is good too, but not as good using a device longer since not all can be recycled, and the process typically requires energy.
"Appliances are already quite durable and repairable."
Do you live in fanatsy land? they don't come with schematics, they don't come witj repair manuals, sale or replacement parts is pyrposefully restricted, firmware is locked, they are stuck together with glue and their mean time between failure is deacreasing. What else has to happen for you to accept the real world?
"I would rather they focus on ease of recycling."
Repair will always be easier than recycling because laws of physics. Plastic and electronics are basically unrecycleable, and extremely expensive to dispose of priperly?
If you can find me a new TV at that price, please let me know!
Yes, getting in a professional at £X per hour means it is probably not economical to repair a cheap washing machine. But if the parts and manuals are easily available, it suddenly becomes a lot quicker and easier to repair it yourself rather than replace.
The problem is you need to be highly skilled to do that repair. So many times I have ordered replacement parts and then either broken something like a plastic ribbon cable connector, or I have installed the new part and it still doesn't work.
Highly skilled? I don't think so. You just have to be very careful, and pay attention to the right things (ESD, cut the power, short circuits, etc).
Secondly, the diagnostic needs to be correct. Multiple faillures is unlikely if there is no external cause (surge, flooding...) or cascading failures.
Both of the above points can be solved with good documentation. I've seen very good servicing manuals, this is part of the reason I prefer thinkpads these days (though they could always contain more details...). With good servicing instructions, I've been able to perform repairs in no time on things I didn't know much about.
I think your reply shows that you are already very skilled.
Other comments mentioned replacing a diode -- I know what a diode is conceptually, but I have no idea how does it look in the appliance, where would I buy a new one or how to replace it.
Being as clueless as I am, my only option is to call a proffessional. Sometimes it is worth it -- I had a fan on my MacBook replaced for ~700 SEK which is a fraction of the price, but sometimes it's not. Our 1 y/o kitchen oven bought from IKEA started malfunctioning, so we called one of the repair centers they subcontract repairs to. They sent us an invoice by accident even though the oven was covered by a warranty and I couldn't believe my eyes. The cost of the new oven was IIRC ~5000 SEK (~500 USD), but the repair was over 4500 SEK, 3k for the replacement part (!?!) and 1500 for the repairman to come and do their job. I didn't know the cost upfront and I guess they wouldn't have told me an estimate without looking at the oven, at which point I would have to pay the labour cost anyway..
So sadly, given the cost, I would have probably opted for just buying a new item if the faulty one is out of warranty..
Spare parts are an example of monopoly pricing - the original manufacturer is usually the only source of parts for any given product, so they can charge what they want (usually as much as possible, such that it's only just worth it to do any given repair vs. replacing the whole thing)
If products can be repaired easily, even if it is not worth paying to repair it or one is not skilled enough to repair it, there might still be a market for broken down items as people with skills might buy them, fix them and use or resell them. It beats throwing stuff in the trash.
Hmm, I am just confident in my ability to follow instructions. I am certainly highly skilled in electronics, but repairing stuff isn't necessarily limited to that.
With good instructions, I can set out to repair mechanical parts as well (replace parts of an engine for instance), high-voltage devices, masonry, or other stuff I have never done before.
A good manual can make the whole difference between a successful repair, dealing a finishing blow to a product, or endangering yourself/others.
Making repairs easier probably makes them cheaper as well (less skilled employees can attempt them, it takes less time and is much more enjoyable). I know I would charge less.
Of course, the product has to be designed to make repairs possible, otherwise it requires a whole other level of skill (unglue parts, precisely cut where you need to).
And lastly, you can only go as far as your equipment will allow you. Sometimes all you need is a (included) screwdriver, but not everyone has a milling machine handy (though that would be an interesting use-case for fablabs).
I cannot emphasise enough how NOT highly skilled I am. That repair could have been done by anyone with a screwdriver and a steady hand. Take a look at the photos in my blog-post and tell me what was complicated.
OK, I don't have the skills to desolder and replace a busted capacitor. But most domestic equipment is pretty plug-and-play.
I am unable to use a multimeter to diagnose an issue. But lots of devices come with error codes and diagnostic manuals are online.
I'm not saying this particular repair was hard, but in general you have to get lucky for an easy repair. I have ordered replacement parts a few times and found that it still doesn't work and I just wasted my time as well as money on new parts. When a brand new device is not too expensive and will be an upgrade over the one you are trying to fix, the choice to buy becomes more compelling.
> The problem is you need to be highly skilled to do that repair.
You also need to be highly skilled to do a lot of automotive repairs, which is why there is a thriving market of third-party mechanics who will perform those repairs for a fraction of the cost of buying a new vehicle. The same can (and should, IMO) be true for electronics.
> When an appliance (fridge, cooker, washing machine) breaks, it's cheaper to replace
In a lot of cases it's not, but people don't want to troubleshoot or 3rd part makes more money by replacing it.
I try to fix my suff not for economical reasons, but environmental. In many instances I also save time as well. A few examples:
- car service wanted to replace windshield wipers on my car. I took a piece of sandpaper and cleaned up wax and oxidised rubber. They could last an extra year.
- Microwave stopped working. I cleaned up the connector to the magnetron. I took me less time than buying a new one.
- Plumbing under the sink. Pretty sure the plumber would like to replace everything and charge me a lot, plus it would take a few hours to find a guy, book him and be at home at that time.
I think I save about 10h and over $500 per year. It's often fun to replace something.
I agree on the time thing, if you have the inclination it's often easier/faster to just fix something, rather than all the hassle of replacing it (not even counting the monetary saving)
We had an old mixer-grinder which ran for a decade or so. After it broke down, I went to an official repair shop, and they quoted an amount which make buying a new one a better option. So we did - from different company. It turned out that the new one constantly gave us problems, but we stuck with it for years. And one day while cleaning up our home, we found the old mixer and gave it to our domestic help to keep if she could get it repaired.
She did get it repaired. For less than a DOLLAR! And it still runs better than the new-fangled mixer.
I had my fridge repaired this summer. A repair person come with his car and tools at my home, spent 2 hours to find and fix the fridge and I think it costed me less then 20% of the fridge full price. It is a real waste to throw a good fridge engine because the doors is not closing properly or a pipe is leaking some gas.
I live in Romania so this might not apply to other places so your experience is localized not global, and with an expensive enough product (like a super expensive TV or laptop) I bet most people would want it fixed and spent the money on some other gadget.
I think any right to repair needs to solve 2 problems:
1: Fixing bad hardware (schematics and such)
2: Fixing old/buggy/broken software that renders said hardware useless. Without open kernels, drivers, frameworks your "right to repair" is meaningless. When you install a new camera to iPhone and it complains it's not genuine because the software says so, the right to repair becomes less useful as now Apple holds all the cards as to who gets to repair and how much that costs.
You need to tackle both since often times these days they work together. For example, the Open Source community should be able to tinker with my TV's kernel and other parts to add new features rather than it being locked down and features being removed because the manufacturer couldn't be bothered to pay a royalty license.
What if the hardware is 100% okay but the software is broken? Is there a right to inspect the code? If not then all of these laws are redundant. All it takes is one update to "mistakenly" bork an older model or it to run a bit slower or janky animations or anything else and in the bin it goes.
There needs to be a clause that makes the software and other designs specifications openly available (or for some small fee, not exceeding a reasonable percentage of the product's retail price), once the product is no longer supported by the manufacturer.
I.e. the manufacturer has produced a newer - presumably better - device that non-technical users will want to buy, and the old devices can be handed down to more technical and tinkerer types to play around with and improve upon.
Definitely. The problem here is that manufacturers will claim that parts old of software and design specs are used in the new device, which makes them a legitimate trade secret they shouldn't be forced to reveal.
> manufacturers will claim that parts old of software and design is specs are used in the new device
It’s not just ‘a claim’. I can’t think of many systems where this is not true.
The iPhone still contains code from NextStep for example.
I do think old (or new) hardware must be allowed to run open software, so I’d be all for mandating a ‘bootcamp’ equivalent, which did have open specs for implementers.
I think the problem with unofficial repairs right now is where the parts come from. If you buy an iphone camera, where does that camera actually come from. I doubt there is an unoffical iphone camera factory. So those parts only have 2 sources, broken and stolen iphones.
What ideally would happen is each part on the iphone has a serial number and is registered with icloud. If a phone gets stolen, you get a message when you install the camera telling you this. And if the original user deregisters their phone on the icloud web ui, the camera works again. Then Apple should be forced to publicly sell this part for a reasonable price for x years.
Just these small steps would move us a long way to repairability.
Would you pay additional 5% for the traceability of the parts? Serial numbers must be stored somewhere. We print now them on the enclosure of the component. Actually be print batch number, individual parts cannot be identified. Putting numbers into silicon wouldn’t make things cheaper.
They already work this way. If you swap almost any part on the iphone it either refuses to work or shows a warning about a unofficial part. My suggestion is simply to make this functionality only target stolen parts instead of just refusing to work at all if the apple store hasn't used their software to bless the new serial number.
Why should Apple decide what part I put in the phone? If the phone is out of warranty then I should be able to use batteries, screens, chargers or software that is not blessed by Apple's grace.
When I was a kid we were "repairing" our cheap watches by using parts from broken ones, at most what Apple could do is print a giant warning on the boot screen that the phone is no longer blessed by Apple so people that want their thing repaired will not be "tricked".
> Why should Apple decide what part I put in the phone? If the phone is out of warranty then I should be able to use batteries, screens, chargers or software that is not blessed by Apple's grace.
For a lot of people, this is a feature, not a bug.
It prevents repair shops using substandard components, or even replacing good components with cheaper ones and then re-selling them.
Edit: another much more serious issue, is security. 3rd party components are an obvious target for supply chain attacks.
That is also the risk with computers and cars, there might be "a lot" of people that would like DRM cars and computers but there are a lot more lots of people that would like to repair the car then buy a new one each year, or even the rich guys that buy a new car yearly they would like to be able to sell the old car and you can't sell an old car if it does not run because it needs a new memory stick in the main computer and the main computer costs 50% of the car.
> there might be "a lot" of people that would like DRM cars and computers but there are a lot more lots of people that would like to repair the car then buy a new one each year,
This isn’t a valid comparison - nobody is forced to buy a new car or phone every year.
I strongly doubt you are right about the numbers in general.
Very few people want to risk fraudulent parts.
But, I do agree that at some point the user should be able to unlock the DRM and take their own risks.
E.g. at the end of the manufacturers support of the software.
Sorry I do not understand your point, nobody is forced to buy a phone or car each year, the difference is that I can change the lights on my car with an "unofficial" part if I want without Ford complaining that I am a pirate and trying to void my engine warranty. I have all the possible options with my car:
- go to a Ford shop and have them do it for me
- go to a reputable website and browse all compatible parts and decide if I want something more e pensive or something more cheap
- when I have the part I can install it myself, a friend or a professional that is not a "Ford" genius.
Ford would love to force me to buy only from them parts, oils, fuel and only repair or do maintenance on their shops but fortunately they can't force us. (but you have the choice to use only Ford blessed products and people).
For stolen cars there are serial numbers printed on the car engine and body parts to make it more difficult for thieves but sure it still happens and I am for doing more to prevent crime and finding the criminals but doing exactly what Ford would like and is bad for society and environment is clearly a bad thing IMO.
Personally I think the user should choose whether to buy a secure product or not.
I have some open hardware for certain projects, but I am very happy to use Apple products for things like banking and various tasks concerning personal data.
I’m also happy to recommend that non-technical friends use Apple products knowing that the ways that can harm themselves are limited.
I think a lot of people would take a device to a repair kiosk, not understanding the risks, wrongly assuming that they would have some kind of consumer protection.
You aren’t forced to buy an iPhone if you don’t want this.
>You aren’t forced to buy an iPhone if you don’t want this.
Other Android devices are also similarly bad to repair, with a locked Store and few have an supported way to actually root them. The mobile market is not as diverse like car market or say web/cloud hosting market. We can't give Apple or Samsung an exception from warranty laws because "the user should buy X that offers warranty" , free market only works only if all the free market assumptions hold true.
>We don’t, so it’s not clear why you’re even saying this.
Because you demanded the user should chose if the wants a product with the "repairable" feature , so I assume your logic should be consistent and you would also like to have the option to say pay less and get an iPhone with no warranty. For some reasons we force warranty and IMO for the exact same reason we should for basic repair ability ( diagnostic software,schematics, parts and ability to remove the DRM)
I hope this is more clear, we can talk about tractors or fridges so we can avoid the Apple bias.
> so I assume your logic should be consistent and you would also like to have the option to say pay less and get an iPhone with no warranty.
What did I say that has anything to do with warranties?
> For some reasons we force warranty
This is just false. We don’t force warranties.
Companies are free to sell products without warranties.
Customers generally prefer warranties so companies provide them.
> and IMO for the exact same reason we should for basic repair ability ( diagnostic software,schematics, parts and ability to remove the DRM)
I hope this is more clear,
It’s clear that your analogy is false.
Customers want warranties so they choose products which have them.
You mentioned earlier that android devices are as bad to repair, but that isn’t true either:
Really? can you buy a phone or electronic device (new) that has say 1 month or less warranty in your country? In EU is is 2 years and you have the option to buy more
I will disagree that computers are special, why should replacing a fan or changing the disk on my computer be only done by approved people or even worse I have to buy a new one?
Sure - then Apple should be forced to provide those parts at reasonable prices. You want me to only use an "official" battery? Then you can sell me an Apple one for the same price as a knock-off.
> Sure - then Apple should be forced to provide those parts at reasonable prices.
Is there any product you wouldn’t want to apply price controls to, or force people to make? How are you singling out one company?
> You want me to only use an "official" battery? Then you can sell me an Apple one for the same price as a knock-off.
This makes no sense.
Knocks offs are cheaper because they didn’t invest in R&D, don’t have to be in compliance with global regulations, can make use of lower standard parts, and don’t have Apple’s warranty. Their suppliers also have zero interest in protecting you from supply chain attacks.
In terms of "right to repair", Apple is a big offender, and the top one people think of - that's the reason I was singling them out.
And no, I don't think we should force a company to sell a product for a particular price, or keep making it - unless they don't allow generic parts to work in their devices. That's my suggestion - Apple can give consumers the "right to repair" (and compete on all those features you mention with their first-party parts) or they can suffer the penalties (which is my suggestion for a company unwilling to allow repairs of their devices).
Think of it in terms of cars - if you bought a Honda car, would it be acceptable for it to not start if you put the "wrong brand" of tires on it?
What? They're a huge company that makes it notably difficult/expensive/impossible to repair their products. Have you been following 'right to repair' stuff at all?
> Computers are really not like cars...
In what important way? I'm making the case that both should be repairable.
> ...If tires were vulnerable to supply chain attacks, then not only would it be acceptable, some customers would demand it.
Those customers always have the option of not repairing the device, or going directly to the manufacturer, or whatever. That's fine. But guess what, most people (rightfully) don't care that much about supply chain attacks, because they're not targets, or the risk is infinitesimal. They should have the right to repair their device.
Because a source of parts is devices that are stolen and stripped for the parts. The parts are then laundered so you think your source is legal. By putting a serial number on each part it means you go after the supplier who you otherwise thought was honest and so this whole scheme shuts down.
> Why should my right of ownership be violated to help apple deal with 'stolen' parts?
It isn’t.
Apple’s products are designed to help consumers avoid the problems associated with stolen parts, including the very real threat of supply chain attacks.
You always have the right not to choose that design.
You seem to want to prevent other people from choosing it, which seems odd to me.
Every year millions of devices are thown away because of this.
How many phones suffered from supply chain attack last year? Probably zero.
Apple products are designed to subvert the concept of ownership.
They retain control even after i paid for the item.
We live in a world where all of my equipment could be switched off if one of their servers goes down, you are legally forvidden from repairing it and people like you giht to defend these practices - you couldn't make it up! You are fighting to became a peasant without any rights.
Other manufacturers are already following suit, and there wont be any choice left.
> Apple products are deaigned to subvert the concept of ownership.
No, they are designed for ease of use. Modern smartphones are way beyond the scope of most individuals to manage. Apple provides an increasingly managed service, which people choose because it is what they want.
> They retain control even after i paid for the item.
Yes, consumers want software updates, and they expect to be secured.
> We live in a world where all of my equipment could be switched off if one of their servers goes down,
It’s likely false to say ‘one of their servers’, but yes, just like any service you choose, you are dependent on the service provider to maintain it. It is in their interests not to disappoint you.
> you are legally forvidden from repairing it and people like you giht to defend these practices - you couldn't make it up!
You couldn’t make it up because it is completely untrue. There is nothing legally preventing anyone from repairing an iPhone.
> You are fighting to became a peasant without any rights.
Weird rhetoric.
> Other manufacturers are already following suit, and there wont be any choice left.
There will be no choice left if people are not aware of the choice, and if the choice is not a good one.
You haven’t mentioned an alternative manufacturers. Why not? If you want people to have choice, why not discuss the options. Apple is not the only choice.
You also haven’t mentioned the downsides of choosing those alternatives.
Oh my got it's like talking to a cultist. Recycling for electronics rate is like 30%.
Do you imagine it's 100% for iPhones because Apple is such a special snowflake? Do you imagine that in the entire pile of hundred of tons of E-waste there is not a single discarded iPhone? I am prepared to bet my house on it, are you?
Apple must have access to these parts already because they’ll happily do out of warranty repairs, even on products that they no long sell.
Asking them to make that supply publicly available does not strike me as a huge ask. Hell they could derive the supply from their recycling efforts they’re always showing off as WWDC.
Also how does providing spare parts result in huge amounts of e-waste, that’s a bit of a non-sequitur. The whole point of spares is to remove the need to throw away a device that’s 90% fine 10% broken.
> Apple must have access to these parts already because they’ll happily do out of warranty repairs, even on products that they no long sell.
This is not relevant. Nobody is forcing them to do these repairs. When the parts are no longer available, they stop doing them.
> The whole point of spares is to remove the need to throw away a device that’s 90% fine 10% broken.
Yes, and it may well be a counterproductive scheme that doesn’t work as intended.
1. You need to warehouse components to comply with the law, or continue to make otherwise redundant components, which means maintaining outdated industrial plant.
2. Devices with replaceable components have to be made in a more complex way that is more liable to break, costing more up front, and more in repairs.
There is no real problem with some hugh pile of slightly broken iPhones that are being wasted.
The real problem is the huge number of working iPhones that are too outdated to run modern software.
If we need a law, it is one that requires manufacturers to make a bootcamp equivalent for devices at the end of their software support cycle, so all the still working devices can continue to be useful.
Essentially every Android phone will reach EOL because of software, not because of hardware. I still use a 10 year old android phone running android 4, and while the hardware is damaged, the software is what keeps it back.
iPhones last longer because their software lasts longer.
Most TVs run Linux so asking them for GPLed code should work, failing that, it is a GPL violation that should be reported to Software Freedom Conservancy, who can help bring the vendor into compliance.
That's not a settled issue. The usual way this is circumvented is using an Open Source shim driver to wrap the binary blob. The shim satisfies the GPL license on the kernel. In theory the binary blob would be a violation of the GPL license on the shim, but since the shim was written by the vendor of the blob, they just don't sue themselves so the shim acts as a licensing fire break.
It can be argued that the blob and the shim are the same work from the perspective of the kernel license (likely IMHO). Until it's tested in court that's a matter of opinion though.
You can get the code, but you might not be able to do anything with it, as there is no obligation for the manufacturer to enable you to run the code on the device itself. GPLv3 intends to cover this case, but the Linux kernel is (not without reason) licensed under GPLv2.
This is a misconception, GPLv2 also has the requirement that you receive "the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable". The position of the Software Freedom Conservancy is certainly that the user be given the freedom to replace the Linux kernel.
Having the “the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable” does not help you any if the device refuses to load a modified kernel. If the GPLv2 were sufficient, then why would the FSF see a need to create version 3?
The device refusing to load a modified kernel is a GPLv2 violation, at least Conservancy interpret "scripts" to include everything needed to run the modified code, since the device recipient does not have software freedom without the ability to load modified code. The GPLv3 has additional improvements in addition to the clarified requirements around device lockdown.
LG's use of the Linux kernel in WebOS means that you have at minimum the right to replace the Linux kernel on your device, otherwise LG are in violation of the GNU GPL and cannot distribute Linux as part of WebOS.
This is a misconception, GPLv2 also has the requirement that you receive "the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable". The position of the Software Freedom Conservancy is certainly that the user be given the freedom to replace the Linux kernel.
The manufacturers should simply be held accountable in that they provide a means to have approved replacement hardware providers. Having software modification available could lead to cases where safety is jeopardized; any claim it cannot be is laughable; let alone who is liable if modified software causes the issue. The manufacturer would possibly be stuck proving it.
Plus people vastly underestimate how much replacement components will cost along with which components are reasonably designated as replaceable.
When you get to appliance level items TVs are an interesting case because its highly unlikely panels will be as cheap as new televisions and creating a case where they have to be less than the television will simply pass that cost onto anyone buying that television. The controller cards, power supply, and such, likely will be more readily available but of them the power supply is the only true part which would be more universal across items.
Which brings me to, the best way to have an easier to repair world is to eliminate non standard plugs along with customized power supplies or chargers within the same product type.
edit: another concern with software, the expectation that camera code be open does not protect the manufacturer intellectual property in regards to new and interesting methods to provide better picture quality.
But fridges do have software. There’s code in there monitoring and regulating the compressor, monitoring temperatures and making decisions.
Thankfully these problems are so simple companies rarely fuckup the software. But it does happen, and then hardware is run slightly out of spec resulting in failures.
Have the right to replace the software would be amazing. It would give people the ability to replace slightly broken firmware with better firmware extending the life of their products or even add new featured.
For a fridge new features could be simple things like the ability to change its temperature on a schedule, ability to respond electricity prices etc
Agree that most people aren’t interested in this. But if we’re serious about increasing the usefulness and longevity of these products then giving people the ability to make these changes can only be a plus. And to be clear I don’t think having a USB port of every fridge is a good idea, but releasing enough information that field technicians to make these changes easily would be enough.
I'm sorry, air compressor regulation does not require software. Compressor units have been working for decades without software. If the current industry is anything to go on, the reliance on software for compressor regulation has reduced, not increased, reliability. Older fridges would last 20-30 years. Last year I threw out a fridge that was a free hand-me-down. The gasket was so old that the door would not seal anymore, but the compressor still worked!
Most of the other things you speak of, such as schedule based temperature changes, are possible in hardware alone. Responding to electricity prices is a no-go anyways, a fridge maintains a constant internal temperature. Turning it off to save money will spoil food faster, costing you more money.
I think you come from a "software is everything" mentality, which is fine for something as complex as a smartphone, but completely the wrong way to go about things for an appliance.
How?
Like really though, what would software do to control a compressor unit that would be expensive or difficult to do on a PCB? Especially given that a little microchip to run that software likely is far more complex and expensive than the PCB itself.
Most software of that type i've written is based in control theory, which can be replicated in analog circuits fairly simply.
Surprisingly often, you even see people writing code for this type of thing using ladder diagram programms, literally designing electronic circuits to do the job that then get converted into code
> Like really though, what would software do to control a compressor unit that would be expensive or difficult to do on a PCB?
On a refrigerator:
Software can choose to run a compressor at a lower, more efficient power setting for longer when the temperature just needs to be maintained. It can automatically time a defrost cycle based on when the doors are most often opened. It can tell when the door was opened and kick in the compressor at high power to quickly return the internals to the target temperature. It can debounce the door openings, delaying the cooling cycle until the door has been closed for a while.
It's also far easier to iterate and experiment with software.
> Especially given that a little microchip to run that software likely is far more complex and expensive than the PCB itself.
Active analog components like op-amps are often more expensive than an MCU, especially if you can build up a single package with all of the components that would have been on the PCB.
Control systems with negative feedback etc are just great tools, so it's not surprise that software systems also make use of them.
You can easily achieve this with a thermostat wired to the compressor. Its fully hardware based, analog and is perfectly capable of maintaining a specified temp range. This is how it was done for decades and it worked fine.
> Manufacturers will be legally obliged to make spare parts for products available to consumers for the first time – a new legal right for repairs.
I take it that third-parties will not get any new freedoms then, and that things like design patents will continue to apply there. I wonder if the law will have anything to say about price-point, if there's no competition.
I was surprised to see no mention of the matter of companies deliberately engineering their products to be hostile to user repairs. I was under the impression that forbidding that kind of thing was the main point of right-to-repair legislation.
(For example, one part of the system might verify that a peripheral has some cryptographic key to prove that it's an authentic first-party part. With this technique, third-party products either don't work, or are set upon by lawyers for breaking copyright law in cloning the key.)
These laws might not go far enough but they might be more of a threat to corporations. Corps may start making their products just friendly enough to avoid new laws which would be stricter and out of their control.
What if it was a 0% premium, because businesses unable to adapt to new regulations without increasing their prices by 20% or 200% (!) are competed out of the market by those able to be more efficient, reduce their expenditures, or cut back their profits?
Most people find the DIY ethic completely alien.
The number of people impressed that I could make my own burritos - requiring about the same skill as making a sandwich - is pretty indicative. The numbers on adoption of the Linux desktop is another, I think.
The main issue is customers should have the ability to disable lockdown to install their own OS. For fixing issues, the source code could be shared with customers under a license permitting individual use/modification, but not distribution etc.
As for hundreds other useless regulations that bog us down.
For example, compare the warranty process with Apple and with any of the other laptop companies. If regulations worked you wouldn't even consider warranty to be a good selling point.
Still I've been burned by warranties services so many times, threatened to report, reported to consumer report and I got nothing out of it.
I don't even consider it. I just buy crap I'll try to fix myself if it breaks or I buy from a reputable company.
What are the regulations doing for us then?
How many companies using dark patterns in their EU imposed cookie banners have been fined?
Apple has been sued multiple times in the EU because of onerous warranty practices and lost. Obviously their working warranty doesn't work so great.
There's at least one website tracking GDPR fines. It's gonna take a while given that everyone is illegitimately collecting data on their visitors/customers.
The fact that, after being sued once and doing nothing to fix it, then being sued again, for the same thing, a company is still solvent, is evidence against regulation being effective. If the regulation was effective, they'd either shape up or be bankrupted by fines.
It's the third sentence from the article: "They are keeping a promise to implement EU rules aimed at cutting energy and bills – and reducing the need for new materials."
Apple gear costs more in Europe because the market will bear it. It has almost nothing to do with regulations, which almost always benefits consumers at little cost. If prices are high it's usually due to a lack of competition.
Here's a couple of examples:
Free international roaming for mobile phones plans in the EU has caused the price of phone plans to move very little and mostly at the rock bottom end of the scale.
I bought the cheapest Kia Rio I could in 2016. It was bottom of the range (trim level) and yet it was decked out with ABS, electronic stability control and tire pressure monitoring. At least two of those things has saved me from a serious accident over the years. The only reason they were included was because they are mandated by the EU on all cars.
Oh gawd what kind of bullshit is this going to lead to I wonder. An even more obtrusive physical version of how I have to click “accept cookies” all over the damn internet now? As if using a web browser wasn’t consent enough.
ifixit has only ever given two phones 10/10 in its repairability scores, the Fairphone 2 and 3, and only one other phone has scored above 7 since 2017. What we really need is system to seriously penalise manufacturers until they fundamentally change practices.
I had to get a couple of appliances repaired recently. The handy man charges a minimum of 50 GBP per hour. Established and organized business charge upwards of 100 as a call-out charge alone (parts extra). If it's a non-trivial electronic repair, the spare would cost 150+ (and they're allowed to mark up prices as they please). Now add all that up, and a sweet 20% VAT on top, and voila, that's nearly how much a new one costs, plus it comes with n years of warranty; even better, I get the opportunity buy extended warranty. What I didn't mention is the waiting time for someone to visit in the first place.
Essentially, it's economical and sensible to get at most one repair on an appliance done. If it's an appliance on which you depend daily, you might not be in a position to wait to get it repaired.
Solution: get a new one. Nearly same cost; no wait; new features. Plus, they'll also take away your old one, and may even give you a discount.
I have to wonder - was repairing (rather than replacing) appliances cheaper in the past? If so, is there a clear cause on why repair prices have changed?
Appliances are comparatively cheaper now because production has been moved to low-wage countries. And also because of productivity increases from automation.
It's harder to move the repair to low-wage countries or to automate it.
Not necessarily cheaper but much easier. Plus, it was convenient as new appliances were quite a lot more expensive (and may I add much more durable).
Nowadays trying to repair an appliance you run into all sorts of issues like missing schematics (and it's much harder to make out what does what on a logic board of a washing machine for example), low parts availability + serialized parts + firmware locks (this is mostly Apple though).
My issue is that new stuff doesn't really seem to be made to last. My last washing machine lasted exactly warranty + 7 days. Meanwhile, mum still has a washing machine close to 30 years old which still works great (with some repairs every few years with super cheap parts). And nowadays it's mostly plastic with a dash of metal instead of the other way around (unless you like moving the washing machine every week the "but it's lighter" argument is moot)
But if you can do it yourself, the economics change dramatically.
I'm not sure what the proposed law changes in this respect. I've fixed boilers, phones, computers, TVs, dishwashers and washing machines to varying degrees without call-out costs. Part availability has never really been an issue.
That's great, but companies are taking direct actions to make this more difficult or even illegal.
Try to repair your tractor, or the software in an older phone/tablet/tv. The software will actively prevent it, and if you break that digital lock you've broken the law in a lot of places.
And that's where this law seems to help best, squashing those sorts of hardware EULAs that forbid the user fixing them.
I'd put money on this not fixing all those problems though. Many markets have moved to non-ownership models (eg long lease) to keep people from reusing and repairing older models of things. No rights if it's not yours.
Still, if this means that I get access to first party smartphone parts, all the better. Third party screens are cheap, but they're awful too.
I think many of us are ignoring the environmental impact and hassle derived from the act of having to buy new instead of repairing:
- Found out what happened in the first place.
- Looking for a new model you like since the one you already had and liked doesn't exist anymore. Price compare. Get it delivered and possibly wait a few days.
- Possibly the appliance must be installed by a technician. Arrange an appointment for that.
- Set up the machine and get everyone to learn how to use the appliance.
- Find out that some things don't work as they used to.
- Dispose the plastics, papers from the packaging.
- Scan the new manual for your records.
- Dispose the old appliance in a proper way (electronic trash must be disposed in other facilities than the packaging)
- Repeat.
This is about giving the possibility of repairs. The consumer is to decide what is economically posible, but I think a lot of possibilities might open up, like remote-assisted repairs and tutorials.
If the original problem is "people consume too much short-lived plastic crap", then maybe let's address the root cause, rather than placing a band-aid of DIY fixing things that keep breaking.
For instance, how about having more people buy more expensive / longer-living stuff that does not pile up on landfills in an economy where money is sound, people are encouraged to save it and buy better quality and longer living stuff, thus incentivizing investment in lengthier R&D and supply chains and generally being more thoughtful about the longer-term effects like ecology rather than how to keep up with mortgage and other debt, living from paycheck to paycheck. (Pro tip: Bitcoin.)
But if a more special part breaks, say a custom voltage regulator to a game console (just since I saw a video on that fail yesterday), I would like for a repair center to be able to buy one such for a reasonable price and have the 500$ console repaired for perhaps 100$ - not scrap it.
reply