Colorado Denied Its Citizens the Right-To-Repair After Riveting Testimony (vice.com) 245
A right-to-repair bill died in the Colorado state legislature on March 25, 2021. After almost three hours of testimony from business leaders, disabled advocates, and a 9-year-old activist, legislators said there were too many unanswered questions and that the proposed law was too broad. Motherboard reports: Colorado's proposed right-to-repair law was simple and clear. At 11 pages, the legislation spent most of its word count defining terms, but the gist was simple: It would let people fix their own stuff without needing to resort to the manufacturer and force said manufacturer to support people who want to fix stuff. "For the purpose of providing services for digital electronic equipment sold or used in this state, an original equipment manufacturer shall, with fair and reasonable terms and cost, make available to an independent repair provider or owner of the manufacturer's equipment any documentation, parts, embedded software, firmware, or tools that are intended for use with the digital electronic equipment, including updates to documentation, information, or embedded software," the proposed bill said.
The Colorado House Business Affairs & Labor committee met to consider the law on March 25. Twelve legislators voted to indefinitely postpone considering the bill. Only one voted for it. "I still have a lot of questions. I still have a lot of concerns," Rep. Monica Duran (D) said at the end of the committee hearing. She voted no on the bill. It was a stunning statement given just how many people testified on behalf of the right-to-repair legislation and how few questions the committee asked them. [...] In their own comments, the legislators repeated lines Apple and other companies often use to defend their repair monopolies. Shannon Bird (D), for example, said that manufacturers have the right to dictate how a customer uses its product. She stressed that Apple can sell licenses to whatever it wants. "Apple Music is different than purchasing a CD," she said. "I have a hard time believing that we would call it Apple having a monopoly on its own product."
Many of the legislators on the committee conflated the repair market with the phone market itself. Others said that a right-to-repair bill would increase the cost of phones for everyone. Rep. Steven Woodrow (D), a sponsor of the bill, explained why this didn't make any sense. "We're not talking about the market for phones. We're talking about the market for repairs, it's a secondary market," he said. "By restricting competition in that market they're engaged in manipulation. The cost should go down. By allowing for repairs you're increasing the supply. Basic econ says that as the supply increases the price decreases."
The Colorado House Business Affairs & Labor committee met to consider the law on March 25. Twelve legislators voted to indefinitely postpone considering the bill. Only one voted for it. "I still have a lot of questions. I still have a lot of concerns," Rep. Monica Duran (D) said at the end of the committee hearing. She voted no on the bill. It was a stunning statement given just how many people testified on behalf of the right-to-repair legislation and how few questions the committee asked them. [...] In their own comments, the legislators repeated lines Apple and other companies often use to defend their repair monopolies. Shannon Bird (D), for example, said that manufacturers have the right to dictate how a customer uses its product. She stressed that Apple can sell licenses to whatever it wants. "Apple Music is different than purchasing a CD," she said. "I have a hard time believing that we would call it Apple having a monopoly on its own product."
Many of the legislators on the committee conflated the repair market with the phone market itself. Others said that a right-to-repair bill would increase the cost of phones for everyone. Rep. Steven Woodrow (D), a sponsor of the bill, explained why this didn't make any sense. "We're not talking about the market for phones. We're talking about the market for repairs, it's a secondary market," he said. "By restricting competition in that market they're engaged in manipulation. The cost should go down. By allowing for repairs you're increasing the supply. Basic econ says that as the supply increases the price decreases."
Business leaders vs a 9yo? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly this. Why present the right to repair as a fringe subject instead of something *everyone* should want.
Are the sources of income ... (Score:5, Insightful)
for those twelve legislators available ? It would be interesting to see what ''contributions'' they have recently received and will do over the next year or so.
Re:Are the sources of income ... (Score:4, Informative)
Is this of any use? https://justfacts.votesmart.or... [votesmart.org]
You can look the others up there too. Here is how they all voted: https://leg.colorado.gov/conte... [colorado.gov]
Seems like "PLUMBERS & PIPEFITTERS LOCAL 3" who donated $4,500 to Duran, for example, would have a vested interest in washing machines being easier to repair, not less. More work for them if people repair stuff instead of replacing it, right?
So at first glance I'm not sure this line is enquiry is going to yield useful results.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Most of them.
Re: (Score:3)
Let me save you the hassle: They are legislators which means they work for corporate lobbyists. No need to go digging. If you want to dig, find out why the one guy voted for the bill. He's the wildcard here we don't understand.
If right-to-repair laws are wrong... (Score:2)
...then Apple needs to call a repair person in the next time one of their photocopiers has a paper jam.
Re: (Score:2)
It would be hilarious if Apple's technology vendors started giving Apple the same treatment Apple gives to its own customers.
"I'm gonna need you to make an appointment to bring that copier in to our genius bar. I have some openings at 11 am next Tuesday."
Re: (Score:2)
11 pages seems very short to do this properly (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm strongly in favour of a carefully defined right to repair. However, if the legislators had genuine concerns about excessive breadth and ambiguity -- and having just read the bill itself, I can see why they would -- then not passing the legislation at this stage is probably the right choice. This is the kind of law that could reshape entire industries, for better or worse, so you definitely want to get it right.
For example, as TFS notes, this bill is only 11 pages long, much of that consisting of definitions. It mentions forcing manufacturers to disclose embedded software. What form should that take? Will a binary blob suffice? Must the documentation that is required to be disclosed include software design documentation that specifies the interfaces connecting that software with other parts of the system? Can a rival manufacturer in a part of the world with fewer legal obligations then take that software and incorporate it into their own devices? Is source code required? Must all firmware releases be 100% reproducible builds that can be replicated by anyone on their own system? What is the penalty if they aren't? How must the manufacturer handle secrets used for security reasons? How do on-device secure storage features work in this environment? There seems to be nothing specified in the bill at even this thought-of-it-in-one-minute level of detail.
It's true that the bill doesn't completely ignore the issues of security and trade secrets, but the related provisions are simplistic, and there seems to be a fundamental conflict between the purpose of the law being proposed and reasonable provisions for manufacturers. The bill seems to resolve any conflict unambiguously in favour of the right to repair, which could render the apparently intended protections for manufacturers all but worthless in practice. For example, what could possibly be an "appropriate secure release system" for disclosing sensitive information, if anyone who owns the device is entitled to have it? What use is an exemption from disclosing trade secrets, if assets that would include them such as software and documentation are explicitly excluded? What use is a right to redact documentation if you're only allowed to do that where it doesn't make any difference?
I wouldn't be surprised if a list of reasonable and legitimate questions ran to over 11 pages in itself on this subject, and even if there might be good answers to all of them, they haven't been addressed here. If these kinds of questions are left unanswered by the law as written and open to courts to interpret later, that's a huge risk to force manufacturers to accept, which could have a chilling effect even on "good citizen" manufacturers, and might cause some manufacturers to leave the market altogether.
Frankly, I wouldn't have voted to pass this law either, even if I am strongly in favour of the principle behind it.
Re: (Score:2)
Being vague isn't necessarily a bad thing as it allows courts to decide on the specifics. In your example of embedded software a court would decide exactly what form that should take, keeping in mind the intent of the law is to allow for repair. So they might reason that a binary blob is fine as that's all you need to replace the SoC or MCU, you don't need source code.
That way manufacturers have their opportunity to argue their position in court, or to find other ways to satisfy the requirements such as off
Re: (Score:3)
Is that how laws work in Germany? Here in the US, laws are narrowed or struck down for being vague [wikipedia.org] when the written law -- or regulation pursuant to the law -- is not clear enough for someone to clearly understand what is punished or mandated. US courts are not supposed to rescue vague laws by filling in blanks. (Most of the examples on that page are criminal cases, but vagueness doctrine applies in some civil cases [wikipedia.org] as well.)
Re: (Score:2)
Being vague isn't necessarily a bad thing as it allows courts to decide on the specifics.
So not surprised to read this kind of horse shit coming from you. Courts should strike such laws down as "void for vagueness" not legislate from the bench. Its the Job of legislators to carefully craft and consider legislation, research the likely impacts and get the details right. It not the job of court which hasnt got those resources and needs to resolve a dispute in a timely fashion to do it.
Just admit AmiMoJo you look vague laws and courts figuring out what words mean after the fact because its easy to
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with trying to enumerate every possible situation in a law is that you end up with loopholes.
Re: (Score:3)
Leaving the issue up to the courts is a win for anti self-repair companies - the vast majority of issues that will arise are not meaningful enough to justify retaining a lawyer to sue apple for a diagram or John Deere for a tractor part, meaning even though citizens have the "right to repair" their efforts will be filtered through an economic assessment based on the cost of litigating the issue at hand.
Re: (Score:2)
Being vague isn't necessarily a bad thing as it allows courts to decide on the specifics.
I respectfully disagree. Anyone should be able to make a reasonable judgement about whether they're obeying the law, at least in principle. Courts should deal with applying those principles to the specific circumstances of a case, and if necessary resolve any unintended ambiguity.
In this scenario, the law would obviously establish a presumptive right to repair. It would also refer to various protections for manufacturers. But as written, it would be impossible for any manufacturer to know whether or not the
Re: (Score:3)
Being vague isn't necessarily a bad thing as it allows courts to decide on the specifics.
It's a bad thing specifically because it requires courts to decide on the specifics. That means not only that enforcement can vary wildly from case to case, but also that costs can vary wildly from case to case. The People wind up paying for part of the process every time, so what you want is for the process to be well-defined and inexpensive. That means having a well laid-out law with clear definitions and processes.
Courts should not be interpreting laws. Every time a court has to interpret a law, a law wa
Re: (Score:2)
For example, what happens when a device is certified in such a way as to prevent tampering by third parties? Components in such devices are designed not to be repairable and will become unusable upon anti-tamper seals being broken. Here is an example of this [youtube.com] which impacts upon the financial industry. Even if limited to the intended scope very strictly, given smartphones now process as many sensitive transactions as the example referenced
Right to parts & documentation vs. right to re (Score:4, Interesting)
This push for the so-called "right to repair" seems mostly about forcing manufacturers to provide free stuff like detailed technical documentation and access to parts, and not *primarily* about banning any limitations you have on messing with your own stuff. Fundamentally, that Colorado law would force manufacturers to sell more than they may want to: if you want to sell X, then you *must also* sell parts-for-X and documentation-for-X. Since companies have reputations, these extras must also not embarrass or otherwise harm the company, so some effort and investment must be put into the production and distribution of these things. I agree that, everything else held constant, I'd prefer to have parts & documentation available, but let's not pretend that those things don't introduce extra costs on the manufacturer, and ultimately in the product itself. I remember the crazy technical documentation the original IBM PC and Apple II had, but I also remember the crazy prices, which is why I usually only had access to clones.
I especially loathe the idea of someone in government being in a position to bless a particular price for a part as be "fair": it gives the official making that judgement unreasonable power, and provides a great temptation for corruption.
Now, to the extent that manufacturers can tell you what you may do with what you bought (like reverse engineer, destroy, repair, make-irreverent-sculpture-with, etc.), that's a different story, and basic liberty mandates pretty much absolute freedom: we should ban any government enforcement of rules by companies to prevent you doing what you want with your own stuff.
But here's the rub for me: what if you could sign away, via contract, your natural right to mess with your new phone and in exchange you'd get a discount? Should we ban your right to agree to this contract? I am extremely suspicious of interfering with the right to contract, for it puts the will of the government ahead of your will. While I won't go so far as to say that limitations on right to contract are never justified (e.g., accepting to become a permanent slave for a fixed upfront fee), I will say that it's a pandora's box that you need to be very cautious before messing with it, for it's so easily abused.
Thankfully, contracts are enforced in civil court, so one step forward would be to repeal any criminal penalties related to repairing devices. I am not a lawyer, but I believe current copyright law has been unfairly exploited by John Deere to prevent people from modding the firmware in their tractors, and by printer manufacturers to prevent refilling ink cartridges.
Re: (Score:2)
free stuff like detailed technical documentation and access to parts
They're not asking for that to be free, just that it be available at all outside of "authorized service centers". And also not to serial-number-lock otherwise replaceable parts to the main unit without "authorized service"-only equipment to "bless" replacement parts before they can work.
Re: (Score:3)
This push for the so-called "right to repair" seems mostly about forcing manufacturers to provide free stuff like detailed technical documentation and access to parts, and not *primarily* about banning any limitations you have on messing with your own stuff.
Detailed technical documentation which already exists, mind you.
Fundamentally, that Colorado law would force manufacturers to sell more than they may want to: if you want to sell X, then you *must also* sell parts-for-X and documentation-for-X.
Good. The practice of producing unrepairable products is harmful to everyone in the long term.
I agree that, everything else held constant, I'd prefer to have parts & documentation available, but let's not pretend that those things don't introduce extra costs on the manufacturer, and ultimately in the product itself.
They in fact do not. The manufacturer has to produce that documentation anyway for their own use, and they can charge for the spare parts.
I remember the crazy technical documentation the original IBM PC and Apple II had, but I also remember the crazy prices, which is why I usually only had access to clones.
My Amiga 500 came with printed schematics in the manual. It cost me $500. Today the schematics would probably be delivered in an electronic format. Since they already exist (they had to in order to produce the produc
Misleading Article and other Weirdness (Score:4, Interesting)
"In their own comments, the legislators repeated lines Apple and other companies often use to defend their repair monopolies. Shannon Bird (D), for example, said that manufacturers have the right to dictate how a customer uses its product. She stressed that Apple can sell licenses to whatever it wants. “Apple Music is different than purchasing a CD,” she said. "I have a hard time believing that we would call it Apple having a monopoly on its own product.” "
But if you check the actual voting record on this bill (see here [coloradocapitolwatch.com]), then you can see on the very first vote recorded by Colorado Capitol Watch, that Shannon Bird voted in favor of the bill.
In fact, that page shows that only one member of the Colorado House, Chris Kennedy (D), opposed the vote. Unfortunately, even though the above-linked page suggests that it should also include details of Senate votes, there is not record of the Senate outcome. I had a brief look around, searching for details of the Senate vote, but I didn't find concrete data showing the results. If anyone does find this, perhaps you'd be kind enough to link please?
Something else that is really odd/weird is the number of lobbyist filings for this one piece of legislation. (OK, it seems odd to me, but I've not looked at this sort of thing before). There were 101 filings against this bill from lobbyists... of which 51 were in opposition. Some interesting elements among the opposition - 5 submissions from eBay, 6 from AT&T, 2 from Apple, no less than 5 from the Colorado BioScience Association - and even one from Google.
All of the 10 submissions from supporters of the bill appear to come from local Colorado organizations.
In other words, the significant majority in opposition (5:1 opposed:supported) came from out-of-state giants. The significant majority of the supporters came from in-state groups that would benefit from right-to-repair [like farmers, who are held to ransom on spare parts for tractors, of all things] and so the legislature voted against.
Maybe "...of the people, by the people, for the people..." needs to be amended to "of the people, by the lobbyists, for the corporations..."
Re: (Score:2)
Blindingly stupid claims (Score:2)
You can only have a monopoly on your own product/service.
Furthermore, since when do manufacturers have the right to dictate how consumers use their product? They may be shielded from liability if someone misuses a product and gets injured, and there are laws against the misuse of certain products (like aerosols), but that is not the same as dictating use. If I want to use my phone to bang in nails, I can.
Why would it cost more? (Score:3)
Companies like Apple put a LOT of effort into preventing their devices from being repaired. It costs time and effort, both in man power and technology/manufacturing. ... And still, somehow, repair shops still manage to perform quite a lot of repairs, though perhaps a shrinking number of them.
So, all that is required is for manufacturers to Stop spending so much money trying to stop their stuff from being repaired... both in the designs of the products and also the legal action taken and secrecy of the repair documents (which likely are needed anyway).
Who gets the liability? (Score:3)
As an engineer, I understand wanting to fix my own equipment particularly at current repair labor rates. That said, if somebody "fixes" a product I design and manufacture, who then is liable when the "fixed" product injures someone? That aspect of this debate needs to be codified into law.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"A right-to-repair bill would increase the cost (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple's service sector has a profit margin of 65% and it's phone division has a profit margin of 35%. More than 217 million iPhones are sold per year and the average price for an iPhone is over $800. Apple spends around $18 billion per year on R&D overall, but only a fraction of that will be for developing iphones since they have plenty of other products. So, it looks like they could stand to lose half of their iphone sales and it would not really make much of a dent in their actual profit margin.
Re:"A right-to-repair bill would increase the cost (Score:5, Insightful)
The Colorado House Business Affairs & Labor committee met to consider the law on March 25. Twelve legislators voted to indefinitely postpone considering the bill. Only one voted for it. "I still have a lot of questions. I still have a lot of concerns," Rep. Monica Duran (D) said at the end of the committee hearing.
"For example I'm concerned about how much my voting in favour of this bill will affect all the campaign contributions I receive from the corporations it would affect.
Come to think of it, that's my only real concern. Yeah, that's about as far as my concern goes".
Re:"A right-to-repair bill would increase the cost (Score:5, Funny)
Re:"A right-to-repair bill would increase the cost (Score:5, Insightful)
You mention R&D, but forget fixed manufacturing costs. All the tooling necessary. And yes, they can afford to absorb the costs. But, companies are known for passing on increased costs to their customers. There is no reason to assume Apple would absorb the cost. That isn't to say they wouldn't, but only not to expect them to.
The whole discussion assumes that there's some relation between cost and price. In fact the price is set by what people are willing to pay. The reason Apple will absorb the price increase is that otherwise they would sell fewer products and make less money. If they don't follow that then their competition will sell more phones.
Re:"A right-to-repair bill would increase the cost (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
There is no reason to assume Apple would absorb the cost
This is just code for "Apple's stuff could cost more, but they chose to not price it higher." Yes, you're absolutely correct, Apple could spike the price. They can do it right now if they so wished. However, there's an elevation that a market cannot bear. So every dollar they go up can also mean a sale they don't make that they otherwise would have. People are locked into the ecosystem, not the device. All devices accessing that ecosystem equally, repaired phones would become more attractive as a fast
Re:"A right-to-repair bill would increase the cost (Score:4, Insightful)
The argument that the cost of *new* phones would increase makes sense, but only if you accept that the cost of *manufacturer-locked repairs* in fact subsidizes the price of their new models.
The counter-argument is that the two markets should be separate and a manufacturer should not prevent competitions in the repair market to gain an advantage in the new models' sale market.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:"A right-to-repair bill would increase the cost (Score:5, Insightful)
That's still only looking at part of the equation.
As example, if I upgrade every year I might be interested in reselling my old device. If there are only expensive manufacturer-locked repair options for the device, a potential buyer would have to take that into account in the second-hand price he or she is willing to pay, meaning he or she might only accept a lower price to account for potential higher repair costs compared to what might be accepted with cheaper third-party repair options available.
Basically, if you only look at one part of the total cost of ownership you can easily get a misleading picture. In general if *more competition* leads to *higher prices* it's usually because there is some missing part of the equation being overlooked. If parts of the equation are being overlooked and decisions are made on that basis, it means the decisions are being made on an unsound basis and unlikely to be correct.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the "increased costs" argument goes more like this: Providing a secondary market in parts, tools and documentation means the company has to spin up additional supply chain and sales effort. The law requires FRAND availability and prices for those items, so that additional effort probably will be subsidized by the consumer end item, because recovering those costs through repair item costs could easily look like unfair competition against independent repair shops.
Re:"A right-to-repair bill would increase the cost (Score:5, Informative)
Products aren't priced at how much they cost to make. They're priced at the amount that will maximise revenue.
If they have a no competition, this amount is a lot higher.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is both true, and false. Production costs, and the market, determine the price. As a general rule of thumb, companies don't sell things at a loss... unless they can get the money another way.
Sort of. The market determines price; it is the result of supply and demand. Production costs determine whether a company will continue to manufacture a product. If the market sets a price below production costs a company needs to decide if it will lose less money stopping production or continuing production until the price rebounds.
Re: (Score:2)
Sort of like medical care. You'll pay anything, and often do. Did you know that Blue Cross' administrative overhead is in the neighborhood of 45%? And Medicare is in the single digits.
Because the government is forbidden from profiting, it must all be done "at cost".
Re:"A right-to-repair bill would increase the cost (Score:5, Funny)
You don't need a new phone every year or two. It doesn't make your penis more desirable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
What about both?
You do you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:"A right-to-repair bill would increase the cost (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The UK brought in automatic increases in fuel price each year back in 1993, the measures never got revoked but every year since 1999 the increases have been cancelled (21 years straight). The right to repair is like subsidising electric hybrid car purchases, then watching people buy them for the discount then continue to mainly fuel them with cheap gas; just make fuel
Re: (Score:2)
Perish the thought.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: "A right-to-repair bill would increase the cos (Score:2)
Falling demand for new phones = lower prices. What factor is there that overrides this rule?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not surprised they lost, even I know iPhones aren't held together with rivets.
Re: (Score:3)
More phones repairable means people can sell their older phones on the secondary market more often. Take that cash and buy a new phone more often. Too many phones today reach end of life and do not enter the secondary market.
The secondary market was never going to buy a new full price phone anyway.
Buyers of new phones would more consistently have a few extra hundred dollars from a secondary sale to pay for a primary purchase.
Re:"A right-to-repair bill would increase the cost (Score:5, Interesting)
First.
The problem that we are facing now is the difficulty for people to accrue wealth. For previous generations Early Gen X, Boomers, and earlier. Someones wealth was greater than the physical dollars they have, as a lot of wealth was tied into non-liquid assets.
So say you were a Boomer in your early 20's you wanted a new car or a buy a house. Sure you had your job income to help pay for it, however you may sell a bunch of your old Records or Tapes, you can even get a fair amount money from selling you old Stereo system, or the little Black in White TV. While I wouldn't call them investments as you would sell them for less than you bought them, however they are assets that would contribute to your wealth, which can be liquefied into money if needed. If your device was broken, you can get it fixed at a cost much less than it was to get it new, thus be able to retain some of its value, sometimes a repaired item may increase its values as a part that is worn would be replaced with something in much better condition.
Today with licensed products and products that cannot be fixed, when we get a product our wealth drops much faster than before. That Netflix Subscription is money that you will never get back. However for that Blue-ray that you got, you could sell it for some money back, so you got to enjoy the content then you got some money back
Second:
The law of Supply and Demand from economics 101 is still in effect. Lower Demand pushes prices down. The fixed cost in development and production of these phones are rather low. The reason why the Flagship Phone cost over a grand, isn't so much that it costs over a grand to build and sell. It is because it is in high demand, and people will be willing to pay the money for it. If a product cost more to build than what the market will tolerate, you just will not sell the product. As much as you think you can set a price based on the fair price (Cost to build + a moderate profit margin) it is really the buyers as a whole who set the prices regardless of how much it costs you to make it.
Having your cell phones as repairable would help the economy in general.
1. When you are tired of your device you can sell it for money to buy a different product.
2. Companies around repair can be established. Hiring a lot of mid-skilled jobs.
3. Larger companies like Apple and Samsung, can make a lot of money selling replacement parts. So the OLED screen may cost Samsung $50 to put in their device new, they can sell the screen to the repair shop for $75 and then to the consumer for $100 for the repair.
4. It creates a smarter workforce for the future. This is Slashdot chalk full of old guy techies, who cut their teeth taking apart, or reprogramming their old Computers, fixing components and putting it back together again. As we grew older many of us, got jobs in the industry where the things we learned back 30-40 years ago still come into play, where the Whipper Snappers who never came across doing such things as a kid, see some of the things that we do as black magic.
for example I was showing a kid how to get this legacy program to work over with the data files in the network. By setting the default path to where the data files were than calling the executable with its full path name. The program used the data files that were in the default path, because it was an old program designed to be ran on one computer. So I used the trick that I learned a while back when I had floppy drives with no hard drive. Where the program was suppose to be on one disk, but it wouldn't fit both.
Re:"A right-to-repair bill would increase the cost (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Fewer, damnit!
Is there are war on the word 'fewer'? Does no one else think it sounds absolutely awful when you use 'less' for countable things?
Imagine a sentence with the word 'fewer' used incorrectly: "I want a sandwich with fewer peanut butter" That's what it sounds like to us!
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Just do away with it completely. Wheel have far less problems.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Your logic makes no fucking sense. Are they separate markets, or are they not?
Less new sales eventually means either higher prices
[citation needed]
or reduced features on new phones.
[citation REALLY fucking needed]
Replace "phone" with "car", and see if your line of thinking holds any water.
Re: (Score:2)
The law may be aimed at Apple, but it would affect every product that gets repaired by its manufacturer (or the manufacturer's agents).
Re: (Score:2)
Well looks like they better make better quality products then. It's not rocket science.
Re:"A right-to-repair bill would increase the cost (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
The Colorado House Committee on Business Affairs & Labor [colorado.gov] has 13 members - 8 Democrats, 5 Republicans. 12 of them voted to postpone the bill. So I don't see how you can blame the Republicans for this one. Their votes did not change the outcome in any way.
But ... but ... orange man bad?
Re:"A right-to-repair bill would increase the cost (Score:4, Informative)
The first post says exactly that !
Re:"A right-to-repair bill would increase the cost (Score:5, Insightful)
Fuck Republicans, man.
And the Democrats that voted against this. Maybe you should read the article again.
Re:"A right-to-repair bill would increase the cost (Score:4, Informative)
Fuck Republicans, man.
And the Democrats that voted against this. Maybe you should read the article again.
I did one better, I found the committee vote to postpone indefinitely, [colorado.gov] looked them up, and sorted for easier reading.
No votes - Democrats:
Christopher Kennedy
Yes votes - Republicans:
Terri Carver
Mike Lynch
Shane Sandridge
Kevin Van Winkle
Yes votes - Democrats:
Shannon Bird
Monica Duran
Kyle Mullica
Patrick Neville
Naquetta Ricks
Marc Snyder
Tom Sullivan
Dylan Roberts
Another illiterate anonymous poster (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Fuck Republicans, man.
If Republicans are the ones standing in the way of right-to-repair, then why isn't this being pushed on the federal level now, of all times?
Re:"A right-to-repair bill would increase the cost (Score:5, Informative)
The town that I used to live in had three competing companies for trash pickup, two of them small local firms. The county board refused to allow both of the local companies to expand their landfills, effectively putting them out of business. Waste Management on the other hand was allowed to double their landfill even though they had repeatedly been caught violating environmental laws that the others had followed. After Waste Management bought the competition's assets for pennies on the dollar the Republican-led county council said, "With only one provider we expect prices to drop and service to improve." (Almost an exact quote.) Of course the opposite happened, and now they're trying to shut down the local electrical company.
re: competing companies for trash pickup (Score:3)
Clearly, you were dealing with a corrupt county council who was in bed with people from Waste Management.
But IMO, this is just typical government corruption vs something you can pin on the Republican Party, as though it's part of their platform to "destroy competition and only allow one business to stand".
Independent here ... but I really grow tired of the 2-party finger-pointing that goes on constantly. People in power are often corrupt assholes, who just align with whichever party seems to be the best ve
Re: "A right-to-repair bill would increase the cos (Score:4, Insightful)
or they don't care about energy efficiency so they keep repairing the same old piece of junk.
I really have a lot of doubt on this line most places I see it. When we consider the total cost of manufacturing new vs cottage industry repairs, you need pretty big energy efficiency gains or very long useful lifetimes to offset not only the manufacturing costs but also the clean disposal / recycling of the old thing (speaking environmental costs here not $$).
A good example of this is cash-for-clunkers. It was pitched as green. I really doubt it. If we'd required the new purchase to be an electric or even a hybrid, perhaps but what really happened was people with some economic wherewithal took advantage, those people were probably already driving the 'better cars' IE post 1995 stuff with effective monitored pollution controls. So they replaced a bunch of stuff getting 22mpg with cars getting 29mpg. Woop-de-doo. Meanwhile the poor folks continued to drive and keep in service pre-95 junk with no on board diagnostics to tell anyone the pollution controls are no longer functional. I'd really love to see some hard math on it but its hard to imagine its a win, when you consider, those newer cars that should never have been produced are going to be on the road for a while yet, when the older stuff that was prematurely disposed would now be truly at the end of its useful life being replaced with even more efficient ICEs/electrics/hybrids today. They fact they we artificially boosted the new car market 8 years ago means we have slowed the uptake of electrics today.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: "A right-to-repair bill would increase the cos (Score:4, Insightful)
So you are in favor of a society where if things break you just toss it into a pile in some field and go buy a new one?
If it really takes "millions if not billions" in engineering cost to make your item repairable I think your initial design was flawed any way and you deserve to be forced to go back to the drawing board and redesign it.
Just because there is a right to repair bill in place it doesn't automatically mean that people will take the time and expense to actually get their items repaired and eventually items wear out to the point that they cannot be repaired so there will always be a market for new items. Maybe if corporations had been forced to contend with repairable devices from the start we wouldn't be in a situation where there is a swirling mass of plastic in the Pacific the size of Texas.
Re: "A right-to-repair bill would increase the cos (Score:5, Insightful)
Inasmuch as people ridiculed socialist eastern block economy with factories keeping on producing products that, even in socialist market, had little demand due to
If that's the case, then nuke that shit. Seriously, an economy that pauperizes everyone but the richest because the means of production produce mostly by themselves is something that needs to be fought against. It will be a return of the economy of poverty of large agrarian countries, with the unfortunate difference that the have-nots won't even find employment as day labourers.
You couldn't be wronger here, mostly because 'that old piece of junk' is probably well-made, unlike the shined-up piece of shit you can buy now. At work, we've got a still functional washing machine from 1990-ish. Show me a current model that can last 30 years.
If the right to repair hurts your business model, then your business model actively needs to go die in a fire, because it's destroying the enviroment and ripping off your customers.
Re:Seriously? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
You are free to make "durable" devices. You are free to make devices which don't have "planned obsolescence". By what moral principle do you have the right to make someone else make these things (or even to prevent them from not doing so)? Must everything be the deluxe version?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Fine don't force them to make things durable just make them pay for the disposal of old devices. If corporations have to pay for the complete life cycle of their products I'm quite confident that they will start making more durable products as a consequence.
Re:Seriously? (Score:4, Interesting)
It is all possible, just as it is possible to make those devices DURABLE and like it is possible not to used PLANNED OBSOLESCENCE in the design.
No it's not. Millions upon millions of dollars have gone into making those phones as durable as possible given the design constraints. And the design constraints are that users want hyper thin devices made of glass. We have gone through 7 generations of formula for the glass on the front panel of the phone to make it as durable as possible. The internals of the phone are also carefully designed with maximum amount of support that the design constraint allows to prevent the phone from suffering, I mean we all remembered BendGate when Apple got that one a bit wrong.
As for your forced obsolescence, can you point us to some? I mean I can't see any here, not in my 10 year old Smartphone which still works (though I don't use), not in my 6 year old smartphone with a sealed in battery which I still use, not in my current 4 year old phone that works just fine. Where is this "planned obsolescence" you speak of? Was there a countdown timer that caused the device to explode?
And before you say "OMG SEALED BATTERY", I invite you to jump on youtube and watch the right to repair testimony, specifically look for the 16 year old kid who demonstrated how easy it is to replace the iPhone battery and who testified to the legislatures that he has been doing it since he was 12. He didn't need some fancy door or plastic clip, so why do you?
The devices are the way they are because consumers *wanted* them. You use CAPITAL LETTERs like this is very important to you. Well if it's so important you better show us a photo of your Cat S62 ruggedized phone or I'm going to call you a hypocrite.
Re:Seriously? (Score:4, Insightful)
No it's not. Millions upon millions of dollars have gone into making those phones as durable as possible given the design constraints.
And the design constraints are that users want hyper thin devices made of glass.
No it's what marketing wants. The first thing the majority of the cell phone wielding population does when they get a shiny ultra thin phone is put it in a fugly bulky cheap rubberized case. So much for ultra thin and high end materials and assorted bullshit.
The out of control enlarging of cell phones driven by marketing department pissing matches is currently pissing off a lot of people.
Never confuse the delusions of marketing for organic demand or the removal of options for purely selfish anti-consumer reasons for anything other than having the COURAGE to explore what the market is willing to TOLERATE.
The devices are the way they are because consumers *wanted* them.
Nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
The razor thin design aesthetic combined with some sense it doesn't need to be usable after 5 years seems to amplify the overall issue with smartphones and probably some laptops. I'd guess some level of environmental resistance adds to this, too, with one-time seals or something.
The problem with open-lifetime phones is that it doesn't mesh with the reality of hardware-driven software changes. CPUs, sensors, modems, all this seems to still be in a period of relatively rapid change. Like it or not, your ph
Re:Seriously? (Score:5, Interesting)
I know that there is a preference within the movement for phones to also be developed in a way to make it easier to repair. But, that isn't what is being fought for here.
Re: (Score:2)
You are not entitled to the action of any other human without their consent. You want manufacturers to provide stuff against their will. Just because it would be a better product to have these things, doesn't mean you should have a right to them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He is not saying there isn't violation going on, simply noting it.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you should educate yourself on what the right to repair is even actually about, because you don't understand. Your list of "impossible" is just wrong. It has nothing to do with any of that. It's about the manufacturers designing their devices in a way that requires specialized tools and software to perform repairs. It's about requiring them to make those tools and software available for people, at a reasonable price, so they can perform repairs.
The challenge becomes what is a reasonable price? Is the automotive model appropriate, where someone in the business gets a discount off the price charged at retail, the so called jobber's rate? Is it reasonable the total cost of all the parts needed to build a device from scratch exceeds significantly the cost of a new device? What level of repair part availability should be required? If a manufacturer replace an entire board when repairing a customer's device but assesses the failed component and does bo
Re:Seriously? (Score:4, Informative)
There is a line that needs to be drawn really carefully here.
Manufactures have always used specialty tooling for various jobs. I have 30 some year old Alfa Romeo engine I am rebuilding. You *need* a special tool to turn the cam sprockets without damaging them when setting up the timing. The tool is basically a specially shaped wrench that happens to fit in channel behind the front cover and block, with some pins on the end that fit holes in the sprocket. You can buy the special cam turning tool -or- you can weld some pins onto some other spanner. Its designed as it is because it lets them make the chain passage more compact, could they have put a hex shaped apron/crown or something on the front of the cam behind the sprocket - sure but that would have extended it a 1/4" inch which would put that much more stress on the front most bearing. I was valid design choice not a conspiracy to make the engine harder to work on, or to sell $50 wrenches.
We should have no issue with this kind of tooling. Ditto for companies like Apple having some special screen seating tool and adheasive formula or whatever. They should be able to design whatever product they want. What we need to control is the "anti-tampering" bullshit that exists for no other reason then to lock people out. Chrysler is a good example. You can't take the ECU out off a junked engine and use it as a replacement on an otherwise good one. Why not? Because they have some cryptographic lockout setup on it won't talk to the other modules unless an authorized dealer re-flashes it. This total BS there is no legitimate reason for it. They'll tell you its to resist tampering with emissions controls or whatever. Guess what already a federal crime, if you do that. Its NOT they job to enforce the law, that is a excuse to keep people from using used parts and / or force people to buy their factory tooling to re-flash modules that don't otherwise need re-flashing because they are going into and IDENTICAL CAR!
Re:Seriously? (Score:5, Informative)
You're in the wrong debate. This one isn't about devices which can be repaired vs devices which can't. It's about devices which can be repaired but only by the manufacturer because they leverage patents, trade secrets, denial of product, and anything else they can think of to prevent third parties from doing it, vs devices which can be repaired by third parties too.
Re: (Score:2)
It means that repair should not be actively prevented by the manufacturer. Plain and simple.
The only exemption should be devices with specific safety certification - medical, explosive stuff, etc. Everything else should be fair game.
From that perspective - you can happily repair a system on a chip within what its design allows - f.e. fix the power supply on the same board. Or replace an external component interfaced to it. The issue with the like of Apple, however, is that it actively prevent
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know where people get the idea that waterproof devices can't be easily serviceable. First thing, I don't know any consumer phone that is waterproof, only water resistant, with no warranty against water damage. And actual waterproof hardware, like diving equipment, is usually serviceable, you just need to be careful with the gaskets.
And right to repair does not mean that integrated components are forbidden. Usually, it just means that the manufacturer has to make parts, tools and relevant documentati
Re: (Score:2)
If you want a repairable device, why do you not pay extra for it?
Interestingly it's often the cheaper devices that are repairable. An iPhone or Pixel is designed to be difficult to do common maintenance tasks on, like replacing the battery. Cheaper phones tend to have removable batteries, or at least only a clip on plastic back to remove rather than a sheet of curved glass glued in place.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You need exceptions built in
No, you do not.
companies that don't want to share their intellectual property,
It's protected by copyright. Schematics can already be reverse-engineered.
If I need to make a product that is not easily reverse engineered you don't have a right to tell me I can't make that product because you have a right to.
Which is not at issue.
Instead of repairing things you're just going to recycle them and get a new thing
Most of the things in fact do not get recycled.
You never had to buy my product cuz the first place!
You don't have an inherent right to sell a product and your right to do business is already limited in a broad variety of ways by numerous pieces of legislation.
Re: (Score:3)
Let's use Cisco; they're an easy target for this one. Specifically, let's look at Meraki gear.
Cisco doesn't sell Meraki access points in some sort of lease form, they are actual-sales with support and service tied to it. That's fine. However, when you cease your support, your equipment stops working. This isn't due to excessive wear and tear or the natural progression of technology, it's an artificial limitation. It's rent-seeking. It would be different if the device could still function as a standalone rou