Google Formally Endorses Right To Repair, Will Lobby To Pass Repair Laws (404media.co) 47
Google formally endorsed the concept of right to repair Thursday and is set to testify in favor of a strong right to repair bill in Oregon later Thursday, a massive step forward for the right to repair movement. 404 Media: "Google believes that users should have more control over repair -- including access to the same documentation, parts and tools that original equipment manufacturer (OEM) repair channels have -- which is often referred to as 'Right to Repair,'" Google's Steven Nickel wrote in a white paper published Thursday.
Crucially, Google specifically says that regulators should ban "parts pairing," which is a tactic used by Apple, John Deere, and other major manufacturers to artificially restrict which repair parts can be used with a given device: "Policies should constrain OEMs from imposing unfair anti-repair practices. For example, parts-pairing, the practice of using software barriers to obstruct consumers and independent repair shops from replacing components, or other restrictive impediments to repair should be discouraged," the white paper says.
Crucially, Google specifically says that regulators should ban "parts pairing," which is a tactic used by Apple, John Deere, and other major manufacturers to artificially restrict which repair parts can be used with a given device: "Policies should constrain OEMs from imposing unfair anti-repair practices. For example, parts-pairing, the practice of using software barriers to obstruct consumers and independent repair shops from replacing components, or other restrictive impediments to repair should be discouraged," the white paper says.
Meanwhile (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
ban return pricing and let shops stock parts (Score:2)
ban return pricing and let shops stock parts
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is "right to repair" also supports chop-shop tactics to stealing things and laundering them as parts through other sales channels.
The right middle ground is to permit the user to "deauthorize" parts pairing on their own. If the device is still operable, login to the machine and "decommission this device" to release hardware locks. This sends a message to the OEM that the device has been "decommissioned or destroyed", and any parts showing up in another device are fine to use. If a device is stol
Re: (Score:2)
"The problem is "right to repair" also supports chop-shop tactics to stealing things and laundering them as parts through other sales channels." - if you have a legitimate supply of parts that can be purchased from the manufacturer and OEMs then your so called "chop shops" would be pointless. Arguments like this are just silly in my opinion. Where were all these "chop shops" when parts and schematics were freely available years ago?
Re: (Score:2)
I know a mechanic that will use parts from the dealer for $X, aftermarket ones for $Y or don't ask questions ones for $Z, where X > Y >> Z. Your choice.
"Chop shop" comes from autoparts, and it's always been a problem.
When ? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Louis Rossman has been asking this same question for over 10 years now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They partnered with iFixit - most of what you ask for is there.
It's not component level, just board level. So your Pixel 5 with a bum USB port 'needs' a mainboard.
eBay is cheaper.
In other words (Score:5, Insightful)
Google did the math and determined this will cost Apple a lot more than it will cost them.
Re: (Score:2)
No doubt all the other corporations who think these types of laws might affect them positively or negatively will chip in on one side or the other and one side or the other will win.
At no point however, will any ordinary users be consulted.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, Google sees this as a way to take a shot at Apple. It's all marketing. No one should think for a minute that this is out of the goodness of Google's hearts.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course. Parts paring is a security issue - you don't want someone to replace your fingerprint or other biometric sensor on you without you knowing do you? On iOS devices, these devices exchange security keys with the secure enclave and all data transmission is encrypted as they have paired with each other, making surreptitious exchange of such things next to impossible.
Of course, the equivalent Android security is c
Re: (Score:2)
More likely they saw the writing on the wall as the EU and some US states move towards making the right to repair a legal one, and decided they could better shape those rules by being an early adopter.
Re: (Score:2)
Google did the math and determined this will cost Apple a lot more than it will cost them.
I doubt that came into it.
Google is not a hardware manufacturer, they get other companies to design and build it for them. They are a hardware vendor but do not have an extensive network of service centres, again they're relying on other companies for this. Because of this and the fact they want their devices to last, they've made the Pixels easy to repair. Right to repair mainly affects out of warranty devices when it comes to what Google sells. The mobile phone market is already the Android market and
At what level? (Score:1)
They state "Google believes that users should have more control over repair -- including access to the same documentation, parts and tools that original equipment manufacturer (OEM) repair channels have" This tells me that the customer must have access to everything the manufacturer of the devices has.
Okay - sounds like Google might need to set up a side busi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I think you're being a bit hyperbolic here. There's a big difference between providing pick-and-place machines to grandma, and not adding cryptographic signatures to prevent 3rd parties from selling replacement batteries. This isn't about forcing Apple to make iPhones easy to repair, it's about preventing them from intentionally making iPhones *impossible* to repair.
This isn't about Apple at all - this is about Google, and google saying quite specifically that they intend to allow thd same access to documentation, parts and tools that Original Equipment Makers have. This is pretty unambiguous - you will be able to build your own Pixel, and they will sell you the entire spectrum of devices to do that. They said so.
Of course, that isn't going to happen. It's Google being a bullshit merchant. My point regarding this is that some people will get happy boners because the
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't about Apple at all - this is about Google, and google saying quite specifically that they intend to allow thd same access to documentation, parts and tools that Original Equipment Makers have. This is pretty unambiguous - you will be able to build your own Pixel, and they will sell you the entire spectrum of devices to do that. They said so.
I imagine the devices the OEM uses to build phones cost millions of dollars. Maybe they will sell them to you, but nobody will buy them to fix their dead Pixel.
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't about Apple at all - this is about Google, and google saying quite specifically that they intend to allow thd same access to documentation, parts and tools that Original Equipment Makers have. This is pretty unambiguous - you will be able to build your own Pixel, and they will sell you the entire spectrum of devices to do that. They said so.
I imagine the devices the OEM uses to build phones cost millions of dollars. Maybe they will sell them to you, but nobody will buy them to fix their dead Pixel.
Exactly. Which is why I wonder why they spoke as they did. My bullshit sensor went off big time reading that sentence of theirs.
Re: (Score:1)
I imagine the devices the OEM uses to build phones cost millions of dollars. Maybe they will sell them to you, but nobody will buy them to fix their dead Pixel.
Maybe someone will buy them to start a business fixing *other people's* dead pixels. I think that's the crux here, it's keeping the cell-phone-repair-business from being a defacto monopoly
Re: (Score:1)
Or is there some concept that repairs will be cost free as well?
No, but if the amount of places you can take your phone to be repaired include more then 1 vendor (the manufacturer), the cost of repairs will be subject to competition and fall
Re: (Score:2)
No it doesn't, it means they don't actively stop people buying those things, just because you may use a soldering iron or whatever doesn't mean every electronics company needs to start selling them. It would only be the case if google held the patent for surface soldering mount systems and refused to sell them, or charged more to the general public.
I hate google as much as the next guy, but they are right in this.
As a side issue the bigger problem is that it makes 1 iota of difference that google or any ot
Re: (Score:2)
No it doesn't, it means they don't actively stop people buying those things, just because you may use a soldering iron or whatever doesn't mean every electronics company needs to start selling them. It would only be the case if google held the patent for surface soldering mount systems and refused to sell them, or charged more to the general public.
I hate google as much as the next guy, but they are right in this.
As a side issue the bigger problem is that it makes 1 iota of difference that google or any other company endorses this or not, politicians should do this because its the right thing to do, not because a large company supports or doesn't support it. But unfortunately that is the world we live in.
I merely quote exactly what Google officially said. Is it your premise that they were lying, or that my comprehension is lacking? If the second write a way that even a dumbass such as me could understand.
"Google believes that users should have more control over repair -- including access to the same documentation, parts and tools that original equipment manufacturer (OEM) repair channels have"
Now I'm an acknowledged idiot, but if it were me - I'd phrase it as "Google believes that users should have m
Re: (Score:2)
Google believes that users should have more control over repair -- including access to the same documentation, parts and tools that original equipment manufacturer (OEM) repair channels have
That is how I, and I suspect most people, read it, even if it was not completely grammatically correct.
Ink, please (Score:5, Interesting)
Cool, let's make sure this includes Hewlett-Packard and its multiple decades of bricking and degrading printers that use "unauthorized ink"
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Just decriminalize removing such locks. I consider that "repairing a broken system".
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I believe that for personal use you are allowed to do this in the EU. The problem is that you likely may not sell a solution that does this for others legally. Not sure you are allowed to publish instructions free-of-charge either.
Re: (Score:2)
And that's the point. I'd consider that "repairing a broken system", and I want to be able and allowed to do it for others.
Hey, I wouldn't complain about HP, Epson and Canon creating jobs here!
Re: (Score:2)
Who, in their right mind, buys HP printers? This has been a bad idea for at least 2 decades.
Clasic MBA Playbook* (Score:3)
When you are starting, and doubly so if it is in a new market, you want as little legislation as possible, so that you can explore and make mistakes.
Once you grow and become big, and that n\new market matures, you want a lot of lesgislation to make it harder for new competitors (or disruptors) to appear**.
Try to imaggine a small and scrappy startup traying to compete in consumer electronics trying to stay abreast of the RtR laws of the 50 states, or, if there is a federal law, if the terms are too onerous (like having spare parts available for,say, 10 years). Big companies have lawyers, paralegals and assistants in the payroll that can handle such things, small scrappy bootstraped startups may not.
Also, it does help that Google's "Phisical stuff making" % of earnings is significantly smaller than that of other companies making Physical stuff.
* I should know, I am an electronics engineer with an MBA.
** This type of things are called "a barrier of entry"
Re: (Score:2)
While true, it does not seem to be applicable here. Google is not a major hardware maker. Also, RtR does benefit everybody, regardless of motivation.
Obviously, one should not start to "trust" Google as a result of this or do something equally foolish.
Be careful (Score:4, Insightful)
When big companies suddenly support something they previously actively lobbied against there is usually a hidden reason that benefits, a loophole if you will, said company. Apple is a good example of this. Let's not forget the New York bill that passed as well with a giant loophole that basically made it useless.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. But this is still good news IMO. Does not make Google a friend or trustworthy though.
Re: (Score:2)
Well here you go folks, Louis Rossman showing Google's true intentions here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Even WideVine? (Score:2)
Wow, Google advocates that I should be able to maintain a media player without any particular weird dependencies?
Does this apply to their search 'engine'? (Score:2)
Really? (Score:2)
Good (Score:2)
No sure why Google does this, but since they are not really a hardware company it does not cost them much. Maybe they want to inconvenience Apple or maybe they want some good press. But since Google has real clout, this is good news, regardless of their motives.
More control to the user (Score:2)
"Google believes that users should have more control over repair"
Hey Google! How about more control over the data you're allowed to collect from us?
How about being able to unlock root without fighting Android every step of the way?
How about not colluding with cellphone manufacturers to prevent users from unlocking their bootloader?
Fuck you Google, you nasty bunch of hypocrits.