California Reintroduces 'Right To Repair' Bill After Previous Effort Failed (appleinsider.com) 171
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Apple Insider: California State Assembly member Susan Talamantes Eggman on Monday announced the introduction of Assembly Bill 1163, which will require manufacturers like Apple to "make service literature and equipment or parts available to product owners and to regulated, independent repair shops." "For nearly 30 years California has required that manufacturers provide access to replacement parts and service materials for electronics and appliances to authorized repairers in the state. In that time, manufacturers have captured the market, controlling where and when we repair our property, and inflating the electronic waste stream," Eggman said. "The Right to Repair will provide consumers with the freedom to have their electronic products and appliances fixed by a repair shop or service provider of their choice, creating a competitive market that will be cheaper for consumers and reduce the number of devices thrown in the trash."
The bill, officially filed as legislation relating to electronic waste, is Eggman's second try at right to repair legislation. Her first attempt, 2018's Bill 2110, was introduced last March and subsequently died in assembly that November. Like the pending Bill 1163, last year's tendered legislation was crafted as a play to reduce e-waste. Eggman's announcement includes a word-for-word reproduction of an explainer included in 2018's press release for the now-dead Bill 2110. In it the lawmaker argues that customers who are unable to pay for manufacturer repairs are forced to replace broken equipment like smartphones, TVs and home appliances. Beyond financial benefits, Eggman also says that the repair and reuse of electronics is more efficient than purchasing a new device, noting that such measures can "stimulate local economies instead of unsustainable overseas factories."
The bill, officially filed as legislation relating to electronic waste, is Eggman's second try at right to repair legislation. Her first attempt, 2018's Bill 2110, was introduced last March and subsequently died in assembly that November. Like the pending Bill 1163, last year's tendered legislation was crafted as a play to reduce e-waste. Eggman's announcement includes a word-for-word reproduction of an explainer included in 2018's press release for the now-dead Bill 2110. In it the lawmaker argues that customers who are unable to pay for manufacturer repairs are forced to replace broken equipment like smartphones, TVs and home appliances. Beyond financial benefits, Eggman also says that the repair and reuse of electronics is more efficient than purchasing a new device, noting that such measures can "stimulate local economies instead of unsustainable overseas factories."
I refuse to say that name! (Score:5, Funny)
Call me old-fashioned, but it will always be: Susan Talamantes Robotnik.
Re: (Score:1)
She deserves a PROMOTION!
Re: (Score:2)
...plus electronics hacking is a reasonably entertaining way to spend one's time. I fix things where possible - it isn't always - but it's nice to avoid sending kit to the landfill.
Is there a non-cynical explanation of opposition? (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple and others (John Deere, to pick another industry) consistently lobby against right-to-repair laws. I've heard plenty of arguments in favor of RTR, but I've rarely heard a credible argument against. Is there a reason, outside of greed, that we shouldn't be able to have access to documentation and parts for devices we own?
I have an HP laptop that's getting on in years, and the wifi has developed an intermittent fault. On HP's site, I downloaded a tech/repair manual for the thing that includes the part number for the wifi card. It's trivial for me to buy a new one and install it. What is it about Apple's gadgets that forbids mere mortals from looking inside?
Why?
Re: (Score:1)
"What is it about Apple's gadgets that forbids mere mortals from looking inside?"
Nothing. Even without the law being passed, you can get the pentalobe driver, open your iphone, replace parts which 3rd party versions (if you know what you are doing), and close it up again. This law is forcing manufacturers to continue manufacturing parts for products they no longer produce, for 7 years.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"What is it about Apple's gadgets that forbids mere mortals from looking inside?"
Nothing. Even without the law being passed, you can get the pentalobe driver, open your iphone, replace parts which 3rd party versions (if you know what you are doing), and close it up again. This law is forcing manufacturers to continue manufacturing parts for products they no longer produce, for 7 years.
Funnily enough iFixit's list of hard to repair smartphones is topped by a bunch of Android devices: https://www.ifixit.com/smartph... [ifixit.com] The Samsung s10 scored a 3, the iPhone XS scored a 6, higher score means more repairable so in iFixit's opinion the iPhone is more repairable than a shit-ton of Android devices. I suppose it is time to grab the pitchforks, light up the torches and burn iFixit HQ do to the ground for spreading heresy.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, but to my knowledge no android phone to date has had a software bomb in place to prevent the device from booting if a 3rd party repair was detected.
There's a world of difference between being difficult to repair and having the device actively look for 3rd party repairs and refusing to operate because it found one.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but to my knowledge no android phone to date has had a software bomb in place to prevent the device from booting if a 3rd party repair was detected.
There's a world of difference between being difficult to repair and having the device actively look for 3rd party repairs and refusing to operate because it found one.
They have a system that prevents the computer from booting if you install inauthentic parts which given their business model of producing extremely reliable kit is not that surprising nor would it be for any other laptop manufacturer. Try installing inauthentic parts in a Lenovo or Acer, take the thing to the manufacturer to complain and see what they say. That, in my book, is not repair, it is experimentation on your part (same for smartphones and tablets). Also, Apple does not ban 3rd party repair centre
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Way to go off topic ass-hole. This is about Right to Repair which encompasses all companies not just Apple.
The question was: "What is it about Apple's gadgets that forbids mere mortals from looking inside?" so I merely pointed out that iPhones are easier for mere mortals to open up and repair than many Android phones who usually get a lot of love here on Slashdot for being universally superior to iPhones in every way. This clearly pissed you off since you started comparing me to your rectal opening which says some very disturbing things about your psychology.
Re: (Score:2)
"What is it about Apple's gadgets that forbids mere mortals from looking inside?"
Nothing. Even without the law being passed, you can get the pentalobe driver, open your iphone, replace parts which 3rd party versions (if you know what you are doing), and close it up again. This law is forcing manufacturers to continue manufacturing parts for products they no longer produce, for 7 years.
Funnily enough iFixit's list of hard to repair smartphones is topped by a bunch of Android devices: https://www.ifixit.com/smartph... [ifixit.com] The Samsung s10 scored a 3, the iPhone XS scored a 6, higher score means more repairable so in iFixit's opinion the iPhone is more repairable than a shit-ton of Android devices. I suppose it is time to grab the pitchforks, light up the torches and burn iFixit HQ do to the ground for spreading heresy.
Yes, but does Google lobby against right to repair laws as Apple apparently does? I honestly don't know. Difficulty of repair due to poor design choice (intentionaly or not) isn't the same as actively lobbying the government to prevent people from repairing their own devices.
Re: (Score:2)
"What is it about Apple's gadgets that forbids mere mortals from looking inside?"
Nothing. Even without the law being passed, you can get the pentalobe driver, open your iphone, replace parts which 3rd party versions (if you know what you are doing), and close it up again. This law is forcing manufacturers to continue manufacturing parts for products they no longer produce, for 7 years.
Funnily enough iFixit's list of hard to repair smartphones is topped by a bunch of Android devices: https://www.ifixit.com/smartph... [ifixit.com] The Samsung s10 scored a 3, the iPhone XS scored a 6, higher score means more repairable so in iFixit's opinion the iPhone is more repairable than a shit-ton of Android devices. I suppose it is time to grab the pitchforks, light up the torches and burn iFixit HQ do to the ground for spreading heresy.
Yes, but does Google lobby against right to repair laws as Apple apparently does? I honestly don't know. Difficulty of repair due to poor design choice (intentionaly or not) isn't the same as actively lobbying the government to prevent people from repairing their own devices.
A string of Android device manufacturers like Samsung for example lobby against right to repair laws.
Re: (Score:2)
When it comes to android, at least you have alternative manufacturers. With apple, you have none. Sure, you can get a decent hackintosh or even a great one for a lot cheaper, but iphones don't have hackintosh builds.
Being a one stop shop that doesn't license it's OS is kind of Apple's business model, people know that right off the bat and they accept that limitation when they buy an Apple device. That being said, as far as I can tell the biggest Android manufactures score a lower recent reputability rating on that iFixit list than Apple does. Samsung, Google, HTC, Huawei all score a 4 or worse on that list for their newest devices, In fact HTC has three phones on there that are rated almost irreparable. Apple on the o
Re: (Score:1)
Might want to read up before posting inane blather.
Re: (Score:2)
That's been the case for automobiles for ages - manufacturers have to maintain parts for 15 years.
It's not a bad thing, honestly; it reduces waste. But manufacturers whine bc repair cuts into current sales.....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Yo dumbass... (Score:1)
Part of that is because of what you are replacing. If you are replacing anything related to the Secure Enclave, this could be seen as trying to circumvent the overall security of the device.
Re: (Score:2)
there's a difference between forcing the creation of new keys and bricking the device.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
you can be sure Apple is gonna do everything possible to brick phones at the first sign of an illicit repair..
If those people then buy another iphone they deserve everything they get.
Re: (Score:2)
iPhones run iOs.
Android devices run Android.
The Android device of my GF has an address book app, that can only store one phone number and one email address for a person ... the device has two sims, so have most of her friends ...
Go figure.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Is there a non-cynical explanation (Score:4, Insightful)
but I was just hoping there's a reason somewhere in between the two.
There isn't any, basically businesses are trying to prevent people from owning and controlling the things they pay for to turn it into a racket. The new model is "everything as a service" where you merely rent your existence from these big companies. It's a real revenue generator.
Re: (Score:3)
It is a bit "interesting" when unapologetic capitalists fight so hard against property rights for everyone else. Almost as if they don't really believe in capitalism so much as they believe in I got mine, screw you!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Is there a non-cynical explanation (Score:2, Insightful)
Manufacturers would provide this if enough people would pay for it
Asshole... not only were we paying for iit, we still are.
Re: (Score:2)
They already have the service documentation, specs, etc for internal use. They are even already on internal access websites. It wouldn't really be a big deal to make them available. They certainly don't HAVE to make the devices use cryptography techniques so that they refuse to accept already existent 3rd party replacement parts (Apple, John Deere and others do this). They don't have to use non-standard screws and then add glue in an effort to make repairs harder. Those things that they don't have to do act
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If it is called "right to repair" it sounds like it wouldn't cost anything, but if it requires making and selling replacement parts for 7 years, it could cost a lot to give that as a guarantee.
Like what if the product doesn't sell well and I stop selling it after 6 months. I still have to keep a factory open for 6 and a half extra years. Yikes!
You have to be pretty careful to avoid unintended consequences. I haven't seen any good suggestions yet, to be honest; you can't force companies to create high qualit
Re: (Score:2)
No, you have to keep a warehouse with repair parts in it. And if you didn't sell any product, you're not going to need to keep many repair parts on hand, either.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, the fewer custom parts you use, the fewer you have to stock. If you use all standard parts, you don't have to keep anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, no, if you're the one required to stock the part, and they stop making it, why don't you now have to start making it?
And if you're off the hook in that case, suppliers will just start publishing a date after which they promise to stop selling a particular part number, and the part numbers will change more often.
This is one of those policies that seems simple at first, but as soon as you start looking at the problems, and how to work around the problems, you start to realize that if you work around the
Re: (Score:2)
Liar liar, pants on fire!
You're playing a word game around "didn't sell any" even though I didn't say "any," I said "doesn't sell well."
If you sold a few units of products, you could easily be required to eventually stock and sell any number of the "repair" parts. There is no limiting factor; it could be 10 replacement widgets per unit sold, it could be 10,000. It could be 1,000,000.
You can't force them to sell parts for home repair, because you can't regulate that the parts are really going to home repairs
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Often it is so" does not imply "therefore there is no impact of mandating that it be so."
So my response is merely, "So what?" You need a lot more words, arranged into a point, in order to have actually succeeded at making a relevant point.
So what if there are often extra parts laying around? If they're not selling them, we have no idea if they made enough to supply the market for 7 years. And, we know that we don't know that! So we know they can't say that they have enough; how would they know in advance o
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Is there a non-cynical explanation of oppositio (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Right to repair laws definitely will put burdens on manufacturers to do stuff, change stuff, provide stuff, and manage stuff that they are not otherwise obligated to do.
These changes are pretty minor. We're not talking about a huge expensive design effort or anything, and I say that right now as I am working at a manufacturing company.
Re: (Score:1)
Jesus christ do you anti-property rights people have a fucking clue how businesses work!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh who are we kidding. People that buy Apple products typically don't use them strenuously and treat them as disposable either through failure or next year's model.
Which means that right to repair laws are unnecessary.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
People that buy Apple products typically don't use them strenuously and treat them as disposable either through failure or next year's model.
Actually, thy do. Moron!
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need John Deere as an example. Pick California's (and Silicon Valley's) own Tesla Motors. They flat out refuse to allow owners to service their own cars, even when their own service centers are bursting at the seams with month long waits for appointment, and weeks long waits after you're dropped the car off for service!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Megajoules of energy stored in a lithium battery pack in a vehicle and untrained people attempting to repair said vehicle is likely to lead to electrocution or a nice big lithium fire or both.
OTOH people repairing anything else in the vehicle is pretty benign. But you probably don't want people operating on or near the battery pack.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You could not buy the cheap chinese crap. I had to get a new battery for my laptop last month. Lenovo stopped supplying batteries for my model thinkpad some time ago but I was able to locate a new-old stock Sanyo battery originally made for my laptop. Has 100% capacity and shouldn't explode.
It can be hard to make sure that all subcomponents in a part are well sourced of course. At some point you have to trust the supplier. But keep in mind that even in new products most of the parts come from China already
Re: (Score:2)
Lenovo stopped supplying batteries for my model thinkpad some time ago but I was able to locate a new-old stock Sanyo battery originally made for my laptop. Has 100% capacity and shouldn't explode.
What was the charge percentage when you got it?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
So in your mind, the Chinese government has no say over how iPhone is made _IN CHINA_? If they wanted to, they could introduce the malware at the source in Foxcon's factory itself.
Are the consumers gonna blame the dodgy Chinese company who put in the bug when it comes out they've all been duped and the reason their device feels like its gonna melt is its been turned into a bitcoin miner? Nope they are gonna blame the OEM,
And if a repair shop replaces a battery, and then the wifi chip dies, the customer is going to blame the repair shop. Yeah, people are dummies. So what? It cuts both ways...
Now personally I'm all for letting folks get their stuff fixed from whomever they want, and that anybody should be able to import after market or refurb parts to fix these devices, but OTOH I can also see the OEMs deserving at least a way to let the consumer know if that used device they are picking up on eBay is using genuine OEM parts or Cheapo Chinese Crap, same as how AFAIK you aren't allowed anywhere to take a car out of the junkyard, fix it up and then sell it without a salvage title to let people know its been busted up. To me that is fair to all parties and personally I'd like to know if that device I'm buying used has a real OEM screen and battery or is hacked together from parts on Ali Express or the replacement part I get is the real deal or a fake.
How would you know when buying a used car? Do people check if they swapped the headers out, or the battery, or the turbo or the tranny? Sure you can go to a me
Re: (Score:2)
All arguments against are complete nonsense. Competitors just do professional reverse engineering, for example, it is not that expensive or that much effort. They cannot use most of what they find for legal reasons, but they have the information. The "trade secret" argument is a complete lie, nothing else. Pretty much the same for the "less secure" devices argument.
What Apple (and others) do is artificial creation of a monopoly, nothing else. It is hugely profitable but it benefits absolutely nobody but the
Re: (Score:3)
In the case of John Deere, some of their arguments are based on the fact that their equipment is a motorized vehicle. As such, right-to-repair laws are tantamount to right-to-modify laws. Allowing that opens the door to people tinkering with the engine performance, which could result in worse emissions (
Re: (Score:3)
1. Personal Electronic Manufacturers
The most common argument put forward is the "Degraded User Experience" fable, which goes something like this: If you take our pristine product, and give it to an inexperienced third party to repair, you have no assurance that the repairer is trained or qualified to maintain our beloved technology. If a sub-standard repair is performed and you then elect to sell or give away the product without disclosing the 3rd
Re: (Score:2)
Unless those arguments came with a campaign contribution check, they were irrelevant arguments.
Along those lines, the best argument in favor of using government force to prevent people from repairing the things that they own, is: "here's my check; hope your ad gets seen by lots of people before the election."
Re: (Score:1)
In some cases there is.
About the only real example I can think of is Apple and their fingerprint scanner.
To ensure that the fingerprint scanner isn't compromised it had to be paired with the secure enclave, and to ensure that anyone installing replacement scanners was able to be held accountable they necessary keys are only available to apple certified repair shops which means Apple can pull their certification if they get complaints from users who's devices were compromised.
That's the right way to handle r
Re: (Score:2)
No.
The idea is to constantly sell new, and the new is supposed to last just enough so you don't complain.
That's why all of them laptops, phones, etc. You're basically on
Re: (Score:1)
Exactly.
The government shouldn't meddle with the details.
Either the competition is working or it isn't. If it isn't then the government should split up companies, not manage the details.
Apple, John Deere and others should have been split up a long time ago.
Companies should never be allowed to reach something even close to 10% of the market.
If they do there aren't enough alternatives for the customers to move to when bigcorp stops being competitive.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What we have is legally protected monopolies. What people are asking for is a level playing field with the companies. Either remove the legal protections preventing customers and third party parts suppliers/repair shops from reverse engineering, building compatible parts, and repairing devices, or force th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or what, your just too fucking stupid to know not to buy from the same company again. You need your nanny to take care of you all through your life. Why? Your just fucking stupid.
Re: (Score:1)
Government has no business legislating this stuff;
The government and its constitution, is a tool that humans created to serve us. If it is no longer doing that, and has flaws, we should change things we don't like about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
must be easily user-removable and replaceable
Define easily. Personally I find the batteries on iPhones to be easily replaceable.
Superuser privileges
The first two words were good, but then the rest of the sentence made no sense and has no place in this discussion. A better wording would be something around manufacturers not limiting the ability to perform 3rd party repairs through software. Don't conflate separate issues.
Let's see... (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
and app store lock in.
Re: (Score:2)
Or....
One could simply choose not to do business with companies that lock in their customers to walled gardens of licenced product ecosystems.
You know, just choosing for yourself instead of sending other people with guns to force everyone else to make the same choices you make.
Look, I don't get it either. I didn't buy an Apple laptop, not because they aren't great products, but because I would rather have an open ecosystem. In practical terms it doesn't really make much sense, since Apple commands so much
Re: (Score:2)
One could simply choose not to do business with companies that lock in their customers to walled gardens of licenced product ecosystems.
In some industries, choosing not to do business with those companies implies choosing not to do business period.
Re: (Score:2)
In some industries, choosing not to do business with those companies implies choosing not to do business period.
Same with murder-for-hire, but it doesn't actually make for an impressive argument.
Re: (Score:2)
In some industries, choosing not to do business with those companies implies choosing not to do business period.
Then change your industry. There is not and ought not to be a right to find profitable work in any given industry. Find something which has a promising opportunity for you.
Re: (Score:2)
I could choose to not buy a phone that includes a walled garden or similar. But there really are only 2 viable smartphone eco-systems, and both of them do this. (Android to a lesser extent, but you'll find a lot of things you can't do if your device doesn't pass safetynet)
I could choose not to buy a new car that I can't modify the software on, but that basically limits me to not buyi
Re: (Score:2)
Learn about how business works before commenting.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Unsustainable" (Score:3)
You know, sometimes I think people use buzzwords just to sound like they know what they are talking about - even though they really don't know what the buzzwords mean.
Re: (Score:2)
The current rate of throwing things away to replace with whole new things just isn't sustainable. It is currently economically viable because manufacturing is done overseas with low wages, whereas repairs must be done locally with much higher wages.
I Am (Score:2)
I am the eggman
They are the eggmen
I am the walrus
Goo goo g' joob
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
At a certain point you have to choose the lesser evil, and realize it's still evil.