A Washington state bill that would make it easier to fix your electronics | Hacker News Reader

A Washington state bill that would make it easier to fix your electronics

motherboard.vice.com

87 pointsmaxpert50 comments

> Prohibited from designing or manufacturing digital electronic products in such a way as to prevent reasonable diagnostic or repair functions by an independent repair provider. Preventing reasonable diagnostic or repair functions includes permanently affixing a battery...

This is exactly how iPhones currently are. The batteries are affixed using adhesive strips that can be pulled by repair locations, including Apple. Anyone can open an iPhone with the proper screwdriver, and the first thing you can take out is the battery. Then you just remove a shield, swap some cables, put in a new battery, and it’s done.

If they actually wanted to make change, they would have explicitly said “without adhesive” or “consumer is able to open without specialized tools.” This is no more than posturing.

Edit: To clarify, adhesive strips aren’t glue. Glue implies you can’t remove it at all without melting the glue. Adhesive strips have pull tabs that, when properly used, will completely take the battery out of the case.

> If they actually wanted to make change, they would have explicitly said “without adhesive” or “consumer is able to open without specialized tools.” This is no more than posturing.

They could also target availability of repair parts and tools (both the software kind and the electromechanical kind) rather than dictating design constraints.

They could also target availability of repair parts and tools (both the software kind and the electromechanical kind) rather than dictating design constraints.

More critically, repair information. Schematics and service manuals for Apple products get leaked pretty easily, and similarly for a lot of other products (notably laptops), but that's only because of largely lax security.

Compare this to the early computers (like the IBM PC) which came with the full set of schematics as well as things like BIOS source code.

> More critically, repair information.

You might want to read the actual bill, rather than the news article. Clue: section 3.

Where I think Apple ran afoul of what I _think_ this law is proposing is in using pentalobe screws to keep the phone shut. Once opened, an iPhone battery is pretty easy to replace.

edit, read article, but not the bill. What I understand is it isn't just about being able to technically repair (ebay, iFixit, etc) but in Apple aggressively trying to prevent third parties from having legitimate access to spare parts, manuals, etc.

One common and frustrating thing that manufactures of pinball games do is using rivets to adhere the heat sync tab with the circuit board, this requires drilling out the rivet. Doable, but a pain in the ass, esp when their design forgoes fuses for "fiscally resetable thermal transistors" Magic smoke makes them magic money.

But generally when you order a new battery from aliexpress or whatever, it comes with a proper screwdriver. So it just serves to increase costs about $.20 while creating a barrier to opening a fragile device.

This is a knee-jerk bill written by people who don't understand technology. It specifically calls out glued batteries, for example, and not any other permanent attachment of any other component. It claims that "operating system", "machine code", "assembly code", and "microcode" are all "synonyms".

I'm all for being able to repair one's own devices (my alarm clock is a 1980's HeathKit that I've saved from an early grave more than once with a soldering iron), but this is a poorly written bill that wouldn't help consumers.

The bill says, rather, that the term "embedded software", for the purposes of the act, can be taken to synonymous with terms such as "basic internal operating system", "internal operating system", "machine code", "assembly code", "root code", and "microcode" that one might find used instead.

In other words, where it talks about making available any "updates to embedded software" it can be considered to be also talking about making available "updates to microcode" or "updates to the internal operating system" if that's what they are called.

Would you like a law that people can avoid by using different terms for things?

Really. Enabling consumers repair/hack their own electronics is great.

This doesn't even appear like it would accomplish that...

> Prohibited from designing or manufacturing digital electronic products in such a way as to prevent reasonable diagnostic or repair functions

So, are soldered CPUs, RAM and flash memory "reasonable" or not?

Those are still repairable with the right equipment (SMD/BGA rework station) and training. The hard part is getting access to schematics (to diagnose which part is bad) and spare parts.

Everything without a reliable self-destruct feature or perhaps quantum storage is repairable with the right equipment.

If they had just said every device needs a repair manual and spare parts available, that would be much more reasonable.

Are there third parties which will upgrade soldered SSDs in Apple devices?

Sure. There are shops in china which literally repair broken CPUs in Apple devices by micro-soldering on the CPU itself - it's absolutely nuts. But this sort of thing is only possible because hugely skilled people who can do this thing are still paid very little - so it's worth their time.

This one for example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2Q00py88L8

No one in the West would do that for an iPhone, because their time doing it would be worth more than a new phone, if they have the skill level necessary to do this.

There are places in San Jose, CA that do that, but their business is reworking under-development circuit boards and devices that have design flaws. The price is pretty good for that purpose (time is money), but way too expensive for repairing a laptop board.

"... prohibited from designing..." isn't going to past 1st amendment muster. You can design and publish designs to your heart's content.

Manufacturing is often performed outside of the state of WA.

Bans on imports, not sure.

This bill is going to have a rough time if it reaches court.

the bill would ban the sale of electronics that are designed “in such a way as to prevent reasonable diagnostic or repair functions by an independent repair provider

Wow, that's pretty broad. Affects almost every kind of consumer electronics. Will be interesting to watch the resulting lawsuits.

"Sec. 5. (1) Nothing in this section applies to motor vehicle manufacturers, any product or service of a motor vehicle manufacturer, or motor vehicle dealers."

The proposed law starts out by being very broad, and then carves out exceptions for cars, off-road motor vehicles, generators, medical devices, etc. It seems like they only wanted it to apply to smartphones, tablets, and PCs, but couldn't come up with legal definitions for these devices.

Interestingly, the definition of "motor vehicle" carves out an exception for motorcycles and RVs, so if a motorcycle has a CPU and a flat panel display, the law does seem it would apply to those. I don't understand the logic behind what classes of products got exceptions in this bill.

The exceptions are likely a result of lobbying combined with fear of lawsuits. Motor vehicle manufacturers are a very powerful lobby and in particular have a historical grudge with repair shops (they want everyone to go to the dealer).

I see ads everywhere for independent repair of iPhones, so it appears that it's not that difficult already.

This would hurt consumers. Closed hardware has advantages (as well as disadvantages), and consumers should not be forced to forgo these. If you want to change your own battery, you are free to buy a phone from a manufacturer other than Apple.

Apple iPhone would actually qualify as repairable by these guidelines. The goal is to prevent things like glued batteries which provide zero benefit to consumers.

Similar rules apply to cars which need not be easy to repair just possible to repair.

> The goal is to prevent things like glued batteries which provide zero benefit to consumers

I’m a consumer who prefers thinner devices over easily-repairable ones. (At today's levels of miniaturization, saving the volume fasteners would occupy might permit an additional co-processor, or some other useful functionality.)

A state government dictating how non-essential, competitively-produced consumer electronics should be designed is textbook overreach. Minimum warranty periods, increased warranty scope, increased recycling taxes, open schematic requirements, et cetera better target the factors we care about. Better targeting minimises unintended consequences. Unfortunately, that bill wouldn’t earn its drafters pitchfork points.

I like thin devices and use an iPhone without a case for that very reason. However, as I said noting stops me from repairing an iPhone which IMO is great.

Glue does not allow for thinner devices, non removable batteries do but that's a different thing. It sometimes saves fractions of a cent for the manufacture and that's about it. Now, if we want to make an exception for anything under 200$ I would say that's reasonable, but past that point most people want at least the option to try and have something fixed.

It sounds like constraining battery replacement costs to a certain fraction of MSRP would be a cleaner solution than banning specific design methods.

It's not just batteries. It's getting a nick on the case and replacing the case not the device. Or cracking a screen on an otherwise fully functional device. Or having a kid put gum in a charging port and being able to replace that etc.

... my local independent iPhone repair store appears to provide all of those services for a pretty low price.

iPhones qualify as reparable under these guidelines. So yes they can be repaired and Apple would not need to change anything.

Sure, but optimising those components for home replacement forces trade-offs elsewhere. You don’t like those trade-offs. I do. I don’t see why your view merits regulatory intervention while mine doesn’t.

Home replacement is not on the table. Again iPhone design is completely acceptable under these rules.

My viewpoint minimizes externalities and makes the economy more efficient. Your viewpoint increases consumer costs without any benefit. Considering democratic rule is based on the people net benifit wins.

Closed hardware has what advantages? I can see forcing consumers onto one platform has advantages (as well as disadvantages) but closed hardware by itself has no advantages I can see.

It depends what you mean by closed.

Gluing in batteries enables much thinner, lighter construction. Maybe you think that’s unnecessary for a phone, others might differ, but for things like AirPods it’s a huge difference. In any case this issue is at least partly overblown, dealing with glued components makes home repair hard, but professional workshops and recycling specialists can often use heat systems and solvents.

Apple’s touchID is only secure if the system can trust the fingerprint data it gets from the touch sensor in the screen assembly. If anyone can plug in whatever screen assembly they like with no hardware secure identification, guaranteed security becomes impossible. The same is almost certainly true of the FaceID sensors.

So yes there are very real direct advantages from these manufacturing methods and from closed hardware systems. Whether you care about them is up to you, but surely it’s also up to each of us to choose for ourselves?

Did you notice that the recyclers are saying that the new macbooks are difficult to recycle.

If Apple wants to continue to do this then they should be force to pay for the cost of recycling their product.

The non-repairability is imposing a real pollution cost on the rest of the world. In recent news China has decided to stop taking in the rest of the world's garbage. The toxic metals are now going to be leaching in to US water supply not just China's. Recycling/reuse/repairability has a positive economic benefit.

>Did you notice that the recyclers are saying that the new macbooks are difficult to recycle.

Yes I did, if it’s a problem with specific products then yes I think it should be addressed. Apple prides itself on an industry leading record on recyclability and any backsliding from that is unfortunate. However using glue, by itself, isn’t always a problem. It would set a significant ussue for recyclability if iPhones for example.

Apple closes everything so they can maintain their image. The "it just works" image is hard to control if your customers are encouraged to do their own repairs, or pay an unauthorized person to repair it.

Whatever advantages that make consumers choose to buy it.

Lack of options or awareness is the normal 'advantage'.

Companies don't want to say you can repair it when it breaks because that implies it will break.

If it will break, the advantage is cheaper engineering and manufacturing. The price of electronics generally approaches zero anyway, so all problems people have with the industry evaporate as the phones get cheaper, cheaper, and cheaper.

In another comment I suggested a minimum price of around 200$ before the rule kicks in. If it's over that then by definition it's not free.

Remember this is assembly not CPU design or something. Companies want the ability to source from multiple other companies so at some point you get individual components.

People can just buy cheap phones that were as good as the expensive ones a couple of years ago. There's no need to get up in people's business about how they make expensive phones.

Please elaborate

Every other phone manufacturer is starting down this path of gluing things down.

Part of the value of ownership is being able to repair your own purchases.

Let me help you:

> If you want to change your own car battery, you are free to buy a car from a manufacturer other than Ford.

My first thought was "who's Washington Bill and why should I care about him?". Capitalization. Hilarious.

So any device smaller than a phone, say idk like a watch would be banned? Ok DC

DC has no involvement in this bill at all. This is a bill in Washington state, roughly 2500 miles away on the opposite side of the continent.

we need this in the EU as well

I’m happy this is happening in a state that I don’t live in. What next, in their infinite wisdom and prescient vision, will the political class think up for us? Maybe every restaurant’s deserts must be gluten free or automobile repair places must be open every day until at least 10:30pm.

I see no reason to trust others to make decisions for me about the kind of electronics I can purchase.

The entire purpose of these types of laws is to protect consumers against overwhelming corporate interests. Are you saying that all laws governing product quality are nonsense and that we should be relying entirely on the free market to protect our interests? Or do you just not like this particular law because you personally don't agree with it / don't care about device repairability?

The answers to your questions are no and no, but the reasons for my not wanting a repairable electronics law are economic, philosophical, and pragmatic/political.

Naturally, consumers should be protected from fraudulent claims and misleading advertising. You are advocating something different, laws governing particular product qualities that you feel are important. Insisting on repairable electronics will increase the manufacturing costs (otherwise electronics would already be repairable due to price competition). The cost of repairable electronics will be born by everyone while the benefit goes to the people that care about repairable products. These costs seem hard to quantify and consumers preferences may change due to circumstances, but how can we fairly balance these trade offs? Who can we trust to be so wise and so impartial to shift the balance? Isn't it better to allow manufacturers to compete for consumers by making these trade offs? Isn't it better to allow consumers to make the choices themselves? Where is the line?

Personally, I believe the line is somewhere around suitability for the purpose that a device is sold for. A printer should be capable of printing, otherwise the manufacturer has misled and committed fraud. But not every printer needs to be a color printer, not every printer needs to take inexpensive ink cartridges, not every printer needs to print on both sides of a sheet of paper.

There are consumers that will choose printers that I wouldn't. I pay more for my printer because it uses larger less expensive ink that comes in less wasteful containers. I pay more for a printer that prints on both sides of a sheet of paper and saves paper. I hope that my printer is better for the environment, but many people wouldn't want to pay three times the cost of a basic printer for the printer that I use. Why is it right to take away the choices that others have?

Why is it right to say only the rich can have a big screen TV that's repairable while others can't afford these new "better" but more costly TVs and consequently can't have any big screen TV?

The reasoning that leads to this bill under discussion leads to all sorts of restriction on our ability to make choices in our lives. If you are sensitive about gluten, a law requiring gluten-free deserts at every restaurant might make sense; after all, I've had tasty gluten-free dishes. If you are allergic to peanuts, why not outlaw them in the state of Washington, because hey, we could all live without peanuts. There may be a day when all restaurants provide only gluten-free dishes; you can help them get there by opening your own restaurant and seeing if that's what consumers want. Likewise you can give your business to companies that you judge provide better products, whatever that means to you. Asking politicians to change the rules to restrict our freedoms seems like a bad idea.

Just a couple more points:

Generally, corporations are in life and death struggles with their competition. If a company can make a better product at the same price, consumers will buy it. If consumers want repairable electronics more than they want batter-life companies will compete on that basis.

A big problem with regulations is that politicians can be lobbied to change the rules by corporations and special interests that have large vested interests. Smaller impacts spread across the entire population may make everyone worse off, but not by enough to move them to match the contributions of the special interests.

I recommend the following video series by a Nobel Prize winning economist[1]:

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3N2sNnGwa4

Reply on news.ycombinator.com