Do they need to be sold at-cost or can there be the normal brand name part mark-up on spare parts (just like in cars)?
How does that look?
Not even speaking of the skullduggery the VAG consortium is doing, they use the exact same parts for a large portion of their cars, just with different serial numbers.
A widget for Premium Car costs 1000, the EXACT SAME WIDGET for Budget Car costs 100. You just need to know the magic number or have a friendly salesperson behind the counter.
Also, cars are 1) a bit more complex 2) a bit more granular in design, which leads to more swappable components. This result in needing to replace just a few relatively small components in case of breakdowns (a pump, a filter, etc), and even with the markup, repair is often a good solution financially vs replacing the car. By contrast, on a phone, the individually swappable components are much bigger (a whole screen, a logic board, etc), making repairs less viable.
Last point is supplying spare parts is also quite complex logistically, which explains part of the markup. But not all of it, I agree, there has been numerous cases of price fixing/abuses, for example:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-autos-software-pricing-in...
Doesn't matter. Just draw it and adjust it later on. At some point environmentalism is more important than profits and some reasonable support timespan of ~3-8 years is fairly obvious.
Does there need to be a line? Arguably small custom electronics manufacturers may not be able to do that, but surely something similar would apply to custom car makers.
Arguably small electronics manufacturers would have an easier job fulfilling this since they usually use off-the-shelf parts anyways.
The question was asked out of worry that some agressive rule targeted at a big guy, might have unintended consequences that hurt the little guys.
To which question I agree with "doesn't matter, draw it anywhere and adjust as needed" because there are easily identifiable reasonable ranges, and not knowing the final perfect answer is not a good enough excuse for not doing anything at all, and what we have now is already worse than a line that was drawn a bit off the mark. Waht we have now is a defacto line drawn 100% off the MAP.
With a car your spare parts are typically a small fraction of the value of the vehicle even used. With an iPhone, an official replacement screen will cost more than the 4 year old device is worth. Likewise the mainboard.
Really what I'd like to see is Apple doing a re-use campaign where they recover working parts from their own recycle chain, certify and resell them.
I dunno, how about we start with 10 years?
Producing and storing spare parts for a widget that costs less than a Starbucks coffee will never be feasible. Neither is storing an unknown quantity of said widget in a warehouse somewhere for 10 years to provide people with replacements.
Also, making things serviceable is hard and requires planning and forethought on component placement etc. This incurs even more costs.
I'm all for repairability and long lived devices, but I'm in a privileged position and can afford the premium price. But is this a viable solution for the world?
The aluminum iPhones (and other phones) were so beautiful. I have an old HTC M8 and it just looks and feels so nice compared to all glass Samsungs. Plus the front facing stereo speakers - truly practical.
Security has drawbacks.
Not really an argument for saying an implementation isn't possible.
So manufacturers do it anyways, and sell them in the grey market. I wound up with these parts myself after trying to buy a high-quality replacement display for an old phone (complete with blacked-out Apple logo). There is no legal alternative. They're not "fake" parts, but the parts aren't supposed to exist. (Seems like that issue would be between Apple and the manufacturer, but I digress.)
What good is a right to repair if the major companies can just make it illegal in practice?
I mean, even the use of the word 'fake' here is questionable. A replacement considered fake is not expected to work the same way the legit version does. It stubs that functionality out or makes it worse. If the chip does the same work and performs the same way it's not a fake, it's an alternative or a competitor. And if Apple are short-changing their Chinese sweatshops to produce these chips (and they absolutely are), then it's no surprise they try to seek a profit in the grey market.
This is why I'm somewhat annoyed that this case is being paraded as something to support right-to-repair…
The easiest way for you to demonstrate this is to get some official Legos. Then go on Aliexpress and order some no-brand knockoffs (Lepin or whatever they're called now). Both work as building blocks, both connect to themselves and each other.
But you can just feel that the knockoffs haven't been produced to the same exact standard as the officials, they're just a little bit off and squeaky and wonky.
Now if someone sold you the knockoffs as officials, it would affect the Lego brand. And this is why companies go to court for.
Refurbished parts are not fake. You can have an original screen that only the top layer is cracked, that top layer can be replaced or fixed, the people that fixed the screen did not erased the existing Apple logo.
Anyway this would not happen if Apple would allow selling of parts to third party.
It's like changing a windshield for a third party one and then getting sued once you try to sell your car because there still the logo on the car.
I find the situation where the state dictates private companies what to sell much more ludicrous.
To clarify, I don't think that it's a good practice, and it's one of the reasons I don't buy iPhones anymore. But as I would vote against company doing this idiotic thing with my wallet, I would still defend it's legal right to do that idiotic thing.
It's not the government place nor responsibility to solve such trivial problems, especially with products on very competitive markets that are almost a luxury item and in no way a basic neccessity. Consumers can figure it out on their own.
Phones are designed to be held in your hands, and hands occasionally drop things, so phones should be designed to withstand being dropped. You should be able to get a warranty replacement / repair for your phone if you drop it.
We would have stronger phones that last longer, and produce less waste.
The economic costs are not the only costs in a capitalist society. The other costs just don’t show up on the paper.
P.S and I’ll argue that smartphones are necessary in today’s world. They are the primary form of computing, communication and fulfilling bureaucratic work for large sections of the population on the planet. In India, you’ll have a tough time in life if you don’t have a smartphone. You can survive? Yes. But it will be a PITA to communicate with others, deal with govt, banking or utilities etc
Never assume that government knows better than it's citizens. It's made out of the worst of them.
but the government doesn't need to know that something is a bad deal if instead it provides for ways to revert the deal once it's discovered to be bad.
for example in the EU any online purchase can be reverted within 14 days without requiring any explanation, because it is assumed that bad deals may not become aparent until after the purchase.
clearly a lot of people have already been burned by bad purchases, otherwise this law wouldn't exist. laws like this are generally made in response to existing problems, not in speculation of potential problems.
the issue with your claim is that it is less likely that bad actors give a money back guarantee. and those are the ones why such a law is needed. or from the other side: those businesses that do offer s money back guarantee are more likely those that do not need it. it's for the other ones that this law was made.
That's because you seem to operate out of an unspokem assumption that if government can change something in society for the better, it should.
This core assumption is the only thing I disagree about. Every additional little thing that government gets involved, brings unseen debt of increasing power of monopolic beurocratic apparatus with absolute authority and very ineffective oversight.
I believe that government should be involved only in things that can absolutely cannot be resolved without it. Being able to merely do some good is not a good enough reason. Yes, the phone situation is probably better with such legislation, but it's not a good enough reason for people to give up more of their power to the state and state-like institutions.