Hacker News Reader

Comment by aboringusername | Hacker News Reader

I think any right to repair needs to solve 2 problems:

1: Fixing bad hardware (schematics and such)

2: Fixing old/buggy/broken software that renders said hardware useless. Without open kernels, drivers, frameworks your "right to repair" is meaningless. When you install a new camera to iPhone and it complains it's not genuine because the software says so, the right to repair becomes less useful as now Apple holds all the cards as to who gets to repair and how much that costs.

You need to tackle both since often times these days they work together. For example, the Open Source community should be able to tinker with my TV's kernel and other parts to add new features rather than it being locked down and features being removed because the manufacturer couldn't be bothered to pay a royalty license.

What if the hardware is 100% okay but the software is broken? Is there a right to inspect the code? If not then all of these laws are redundant. All it takes is one update to "mistakenly" bork an older model or it to run a bit slower or janky animations or anything else and in the bin it goes.

View on HN

There needs to be a clause that makes the software and other designs specifications openly available (or for some small fee, not exceeding a reasonable percentage of the product's retail price), once the product is no longer supported by the manufacturer.

I.e. the manufacturer has produced a newer - presumably better - device that non-technical users will want to buy, and the old devices can be handed down to more technical and tinkerer types to play around with and improve upon.

Definitely. The problem here is that manufacturers will claim that parts old of software and design specs are used in the new device, which makes them a legitimate trade secret they shouldn't be forced to reveal.

> manufacturers will claim that parts old of software and design is specs are used in the new device

It’s not just ‘a claim’. I can’t think of many systems where this is not true.

The iPhone still contains code from NextStep for example.

I do think old (or new) hardware must be allowed to run open software, so I’d be all for mandating a ‘bootcamp’ equivalent, which did have open specs for implementers.

Most TVs run Linux so asking them for GPLed code should work, failing that, it is a GPL violation that should be reported to Software Freedom Conservancy, who can help bring the vendor into compliance.

https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/

A lot of them run on ARM chips, or other SOCs, so you'll be stuck trying to get hold of binary blob drivers.

Blob drivers are generally a violation of the GPL license.

That's not a settled issue. The usual way this is circumvented is using an Open Source shim driver to wrap the binary blob. The shim satisfies the GPL license on the kernel. In theory the binary blob would be a violation of the GPL license on the shim, but since the shim was written by the vendor of the blob, they just don't sue themselves so the shim acts as a licensing fire break.

It can be argued that the blob and the shim are the same work from the perspective of the kernel license (likely IMHO). Until it's tested in court that's a matter of opinion though.

You can get the code, but you might not be able to do anything with it, as there is no obligation for the manufacturer to enable you to run the code on the device itself. GPLv3 intends to cover this case, but the Linux kernel is (not without reason) licensed under GPLv2.

This is a misconception, GPLv2 also has the requirement that you receive "the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable". The position of the Software Freedom Conservancy is certainly that the user be given the freedom to replace the Linux kernel.

Having the “the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable” does not help you any if the device refuses to load a modified kernel. If the GPLv2 were sufficient, then why would the FSF see a need to create version 3?

The device refusing to load a modified kernel is a GPLv2 violation, at least Conservancy interpret "scripts" to include everything needed to run the modified code, since the device recipient does not have software freedom without the ability to load modified code. The GPLv3 has additional improvements in addition to the clarified requirements around device lockdown.

That seems to me personally like a stretched reading, but I am no expert. Thank you for pointing me to it!

My TV runs WebOS. It's all open-source by LG. That still doesn't mean I can run my own code on it without LG specifically allowing me to.

LG's use of the Linux kernel in WebOS means that you have at minimum the right to replace the Linux kernel on your device, otherwise LG are in violation of the GNU GPL and cannot distribute Linux as part of WebOS.

The kernels is gpl-2 though, which afaik doesn't prevent tivoization

Totally disagree with your software claim.

The manufacturers should simply be held accountable in that they provide a means to have approved replacement hardware providers. Having software modification available could lead to cases where safety is jeopardized; any claim it cannot be is laughable; let alone who is liable if modified software causes the issue. The manufacturer would possibly be stuck proving it.

Plus people vastly underestimate how much replacement components will cost along with which components are reasonably designated as replaceable.

When you get to appliance level items TVs are an interesting case because its highly unlikely panels will be as cheap as new televisions and creating a case where they have to be less than the television will simply pass that cost onto anyone buying that television. The controller cards, power supply, and such, likely will be more readily available but of them the power supply is the only true part which would be more universal across items.

Which brings me to, the best way to have an easier to repair world is to eliminate non standard plugs along with customized power supplies or chargers within the same product type.

edit: another concern with software, the expectation that camera code be open does not protect the manufacturer intellectual property in regards to new and interesting methods to provide better picture quality.

I think the problem with unofficial repairs right now is where the parts come from. If you buy an iphone camera, where does that camera actually come from. I doubt there is an unoffical iphone camera factory. So those parts only have 2 sources, broken and stolen iphones.

What ideally would happen is each part on the iphone has a serial number and is registered with icloud. If a phone gets stolen, you get a message when you install the camera telling you this. And if the original user deregisters their phone on the icloud web ui, the camera works again. Then Apple should be forced to publicly sell this part for a reasonable price for x years.

Just these small steps would move us a long way to repairability.

Would you pay additional 5% for the traceability of the parts? Serial numbers must be stored somewhere. We print now them on the enclosure of the component. Actually be print batch number, individual parts cannot be identified. Putting numbers into silicon wouldn’t make things cheaper.

They already work this way. If you swap almost any part on the iphone it either refuses to work or shows a warning about a unofficial part. My suggestion is simply to make this functionality only target stolen parts instead of just refusing to work at all if the apple store hasn't used their software to bless the new serial number.

Why should Apple decide what part I put in the phone? If the phone is out of warranty then I should be able to use batteries, screens, chargers or software that is not blessed by Apple's grace.

When I was a kid we were "repairing" our cheap watches by using parts from broken ones, at most what Apple could do is print a giant warning on the boot screen that the phone is no longer blessed by Apple so people that want their thing repaired will not be "tricked".

> Why should Apple decide what part I put in the phone? If the phone is out of warranty then I should be able to use batteries, screens, chargers or software that is not blessed by Apple's grace.

For a lot of people, this is a feature, not a bug.

It prevents repair shops using substandard components, or even replacing good components with cheaper ones and then re-selling them.

Edit: another much more serious issue, is security. 3rd party components are an obvious target for supply chain attacks.

That is also the risk with computers and cars, there might be "a lot" of people that would like DRM cars and computers but there are a lot more lots of people that would like to repair the car then buy a new one each year, or even the rich guys that buy a new car yearly they would like to be able to sell the old car and you can't sell an old car if it does not run because it needs a new memory stick in the main computer and the main computer costs 50% of the car.

> there might be "a lot" of people that would like DRM cars and computers but there are a lot more lots of people that would like to repair the car then buy a new one each year,

This isn’t a valid comparison - nobody is forced to buy a new car or phone every year.

I strongly doubt you are right about the numbers in general.

Very few people want to risk fraudulent parts.

But, I do agree that at some point the user should be able to unlock the DRM and take their own risks.

E.g. at the end of the manufacturers support of the software.

Sorry I do not understand your point, nobody is forced to buy a phone or car each year, the difference is that I can change the lights on my car with an "unofficial" part if I want without Ford complaining that I am a pirate and trying to void my engine warranty. I have all the possible options with my car:

- go to a Ford shop and have them do it for me

- go to a reputable website and browse all compatible parts and decide if I want something more e pensive or something more cheap

- when I have the part I can install it myself, a friend or a professional that is not a "Ford" genius.

Ford would love to force me to buy only from them parts, oils, fuel and only repair or do maintenance on their shops but fortunately they can't force us. (but you have the choice to use only Ford blessed products and people).

For stolen cars there are serial numbers printed on the car engine and body parts to make it more difficult for thieves but sure it still happens and I am for doing more to prevent crime and finding the criminals but doing exactly what Ford would like and is bad for society and environment is clearly a bad thing IMO.

We aren’t talking about cars. As I said earlier, they aren’t a valid comparison.

Computers and cars are quite different in their components, and life cycle.

I disagree. But let me know how do you define the line where this electronics should be repairable and the other ones should be DRM locked.

Personally I think the user should choose whether to buy a secure product or not.

I have some open hardware for certain projects, but I am very happy to use Apple products for things like banking and various tasks concerning personal data.

I’m also happy to recommend that non-technical friends use Apple products knowing that the ways that can harm themselves are limited.

I think a lot of people would take a device to a repair kiosk, not understanding the risks, wrongly assuming that they would have some kind of consumer protection.

You aren’t forced to buy an iPhone if you don’t want this.

>You aren’t forced to buy an iPhone if you don’t want this.

Other Android devices are also similarly bad to repair, with a locked Store and few have an supported way to actually root them. The mobile market is not as diverse like car market or say web/cloud hosting market. We can't give Apple or Samsung an exception from warranty laws because "the user should buy X that offers warranty" , free market only works only if all the free market assumptions hold true.

> with a locked Store and few have an supported way to actually root them

This has nothing to do with repairability.

> We can't give Apple or Samsung an exception from warranty laws

We don’t, so it’s not clear why you’re even saying this.

>We don’t, so it’s not clear why you’re even saying this.

Because you demanded the user should chose if the wants a product with the "repairable" feature , so I assume your logic should be consistent and you would also like to have the option to say pay less and get an iPhone with no warranty. For some reasons we force warranty and IMO for the exact same reason we should for basic repair ability ( diagnostic software,schematics, parts and ability to remove the DRM)

I hope this is more clear, we can talk about tractors or fridges so we can avoid the Apple bias.

> so I assume your logic should be consistent and you would also like to have the option to say pay less and get an iPhone with no warranty.

What did I say that has anything to do with warranties?

> For some reasons we force warranty

This is just false. We don’t force warranties.

Companies are free to sell products without warranties.

Customers generally prefer warranties so companies provide them.

> and IMO for the exact same reason we should for basic repair ability ( diagnostic software,schematics, parts and ability to remove the DRM) I hope this is more clear,

It’s clear that your analogy is false.

Customers want warranties so they choose products which have them.

You mentioned earlier that android devices are as bad to repair, but that isn’t true either:

https://www.fairphone.com/en/

If customers want repairability they can have it. No need to force apple to do anything.

> we can talk about tractors or fridges so we can avoid the Apple bias.

Tractors and fridges are not like computers, this is a silly analogy.

Really? can you buy a phone or electronic device (new) that has say 1 month or less warranty in your country? In EU is is 2 years and you have the option to buy more

I will disagree that computers are special, why should replacing a fan or changing the disk on my computer be only done by approved people or even worse I have to buy a new one?

Sure - then Apple should be forced to provide those parts at reasonable prices. You want me to only use an "official" battery? Then you can sell me an Apple one for the same price as a knock-off.

> Sure - then Apple should be forced to provide those parts at reasonable prices.

Is there any product you wouldn’t want to apply price controls to, or force people to make? How are you singling out one company?

> You want me to only use an "official" battery? Then you can sell me an Apple one for the same price as a knock-off.

This makes no sense.

Knocks offs are cheaper because they didn’t invest in R&D, don’t have to be in compliance with global regulations, can make use of lower standard parts, and don’t have Apple’s warranty. Their suppliers also have zero interest in protecting you from supply chain attacks.

In terms of "right to repair", Apple is a big offender, and the top one people think of - that's the reason I was singling them out.

And no, I don't think we should force a company to sell a product for a particular price, or keep making it - unless they don't allow generic parts to work in their devices. That's my suggestion - Apple can give consumers the "right to repair" (and compete on all those features you mention with their first-party parts) or they can suffer the penalties (which is my suggestion for a company unwilling to allow repairs of their devices).

Think of it in terms of cars - if you bought a Honda car, would it be acceptable for it to not start if you put the "wrong brand" of tires on it?

> In terms of "right to repair", Apple is a big offender

Not really.

> Think of it in terms of cars -

Computers are really not like cars...

> if you bought a Honda car, would it be acceptable for it to not start if you put the "wrong brand" of tires on it?

...If tires were vulnerable to supply chain attacks, then not only would it be acceptable, some customers would demand it.

> Not really.

What? They're a huge company that makes it notably difficult/expensive/impossible to repair their products. Have you been following 'right to repair' stuff at all?

> Computers are really not like cars...

In what important way? I'm making the case that both should be repairable.

> ...If tires were vulnerable to supply chain attacks, then not only would it be acceptable, some customers would demand it.

Those customers always have the option of not repairing the device, or going directly to the manufacturer, or whatever. That's fine. But guess what, most people (rightfully) don't care that much about supply chain attacks, because they're not targets, or the risk is infinitesimal. They should have the right to repair their device.

Because a source of parts is devices that are stolen and stripped for the parts. The parts are then laundered so you think your source is legal. By putting a serial number on each part it means you go after the supplier who you otherwise thought was honest and so this whole scheme shuts down.

I understand the issue with the stolen parts, cars also can have similar issues and we still can buy after market parts.

I wonder if we can confirm this theory that is also financial extremely favorable to Apple or is just FUD and PR.

Most car parts are not coded. However some of the important ones are, and that enough enough to slow down the steal car for parts scheme.

> I wonder if we can confirm this theory that is also financial extremely favorable to Apple

As a metric, this is a useless gauge of what Apple does.

Their whole aim is to do things that benefit customers, and profit from it.

Well maybe i should not be allowed to buy used shoes, what if they are stolen?

Why should my right of ownership be violated to help apple deal with 'stolen' parts?

> Why should my right of ownership be violated to help apple deal with 'stolen' parts?

It isn’t.

Apple’s products are designed to help consumers avoid the problems associated with stolen parts, including the very real threat of supply chain attacks.

You always have the right not to choose that design.

You seem to want to prevent other people from choosing it, which seems odd to me.

"very real threat of supply chain attacks"

Every year millions of devices are thown away because of this.

How many phones suffered from supply chain attack last year? Probably zero.

Apple products are designed to subvert the concept of ownership. They retain control even after i paid for the item.

We live in a world where all of my equipment could be switched off if one of their servers goes down, you are legally forvidden from repairing it and people like you giht to defend these practices - you couldn't make it up! You are fighting to became a peasant without any rights.

Other manufacturers are already following suit, and there wont be any choice left.

> Apple products are deaigned to subvert the concept of ownership.

No, they are designed for ease of use. Modern smartphones are way beyond the scope of most individuals to manage. Apple provides an increasingly managed service, which people choose because it is what they want.

> They retain control even after i paid for the item.

Yes, consumers want software updates, and they expect to be secured.

> We live in a world where all of my equipment could be switched off if one of their servers goes down,

It’s likely false to say ‘one of their servers’, but yes, just like any service you choose, you are dependent on the service provider to maintain it. It is in their interests not to disappoint you.

> you are legally forvidden from repairing it and people like you giht to defend these practices - you couldn't make it up!

You couldn’t make it up because it is completely untrue. There is nothing legally preventing anyone from repairing an iPhone.

> You are fighting to became a peasant without any rights.

Weird rhetoric.

> Other manufacturers are already following suit, and there wont be any choice left.

There will be no choice left if people are not aware of the choice, and if the choice is not a good one.

You haven’t mentioned an alternative manufacturers. Why not? If you want people to have choice, why not discuss the options. Apple is not the only choice.

You also haven’t mentioned the downsides of choosing those alternatives.

I note that you have changed your comment.

> Every year millions of devices are thown away because of this.

There is no evidence of that. iPhones are not thrown away. They are recycled.

> How many phones suffered from supply chain attack last year? Probably zero.

Given the obvious rise in cyberattacks at all levels of sophistication this seems like a very weird comment to make.

"There is no evidence of that. iPhones are not thrown away. They are recycled."

Are you fucking kidding me?

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/ghana-ewaste-dump-electronic...

> Are you fucking kidding me?

No.

That article has nothing to do with iPhones and doesn’t even contain the word iphone anywhere on the page.

That’s because iPhones are recycled.

Those devices are supposedly more repairable Android devices.

Oh my got it's like talking to a cultist. Recycling for electronics rate is like 30%.

Do you imagine it's 100% for iPhones because Apple is such a special snowflake? Do you imagine that in the entire pile of hundred of tons of E-waste there is not a single discarded iPhone? I am prepared to bet my house on it, are you?

> Recycling for electronics rate is like 30%. Do you imagine it's 100% for iPhones because Apple is such a special snowflake?

No.

The rate is vastly higher than the 30% for other electronics, not because Apple is a snowflake, but because they have a recycling program.

1. Apple themselves recycle the phones, unlike most electronics manufacturers. You can just drop off your old devices when you buy a new one.

2. Apple gives credit, even for devices that are at the end of their life and going to be recycled.

It turns out that if you invest in making something very easy, and worth people’s while, they will do it.

Actually it has been known for factories to run a shadow shift on the low down producing grey market parts

> Apple should be forced to publicly sell this part for a reasonable price for x years.

This means generating a vast amount of e-waste and increasing the cost of units.

Since Apple doesn’t make the components themselves, they would have to warehouse a supply of spares.

Apple must have access to these parts already because they’ll happily do out of warranty repairs, even on products that they no long sell.

Asking them to make that supply publicly available does not strike me as a huge ask. Hell they could derive the supply from their recycling efforts they’re always showing off as WWDC.

Also how does providing spare parts result in huge amounts of e-waste, that’s a bit of a non-sequitur. The whole point of spares is to remove the need to throw away a device that’s 90% fine 10% broken.

> Apple must have access to these parts already because they’ll happily do out of warranty repairs, even on products that they no long sell.

This is not relevant. Nobody is forcing them to do these repairs. When the parts are no longer available, they stop doing them.

> The whole point of spares is to remove the need to throw away a device that’s 90% fine 10% broken.

Yes, and it may well be a counterproductive scheme that doesn’t work as intended.

1. You need to warehouse components to comply with the law, or continue to make otherwise redundant components, which means maintaining outdated industrial plant.

2. Devices with replaceable components have to be made in a more complex way that is more liable to break, costing more up front, and more in repairs.

There is no real problem with some hugh pile of slightly broken iPhones that are being wasted.

The real problem is the huge number of working iPhones that are too outdated to run modern software.

If we need a law, it is one that requires manufacturers to make a bootcamp equivalent for devices at the end of their software support cycle, so all the still working devices can continue to be useful.

What absurdity? By this logic we wouldn't repair cars either 'to reduce waste'

Cars and computers are quite different in terms of their components and life-cycles.

Pleaae demonstrate at least one occasion where making a device repairable increased waste

Android phones are much more repairable e.g. with replaceable batteries and non-drm parts.

Despite this, they have have less than half the useful lifetime of an iPhone, and so generate much more waste.

They may have a lower useful lifetime, but that is completely unrelated to their repairability.

This is false.

iPhones are built to last longer by being more physically integrated, and the trade off is that they are less repairable.

Essentially every Android phone will reach EOL because of software, not because of hardware. I still use a 10 year old android phone running android 4, and while the hardware is damaged, the software is what keeps it back.

iPhones last longer because their software lasts longer.

Maybe a fridge doesn't need software? I don't hear consumers clamouring for it.

Fridges need software because only then the manufacturer can drop the support after 5 to 8 years and you need to buy a new one.

But fridges do have software. There’s code in there monitoring and regulating the compressor, monitoring temperatures and making decisions.

Thankfully these problems are so simple companies rarely fuckup the software. But it does happen, and then hardware is run slightly out of spec resulting in failures.

Have the right to replace the software would be amazing. It would give people the ability to replace slightly broken firmware with better firmware extending the life of their products or even add new featured.

For a fridge new features could be simple things like the ability to change its temperature on a schedule, ability to respond electricity prices etc

Agree that most people aren’t interested in this. But if we’re serious about increasing the usefulness and longevity of these products then giving people the ability to make these changes can only be a plus. And to be clear I don’t think having a USB port of every fridge is a good idea, but releasing enough information that field technicians to make these changes easily would be enough.

Oh please.

I'm sorry, air compressor regulation does not require software. Compressor units have been working for decades without software. If the current industry is anything to go on, the reliance on software for compressor regulation has reduced, not increased, reliability. Older fridges would last 20-30 years. Last year I threw out a fridge that was a free hand-me-down. The gasket was so old that the door would not seal anymore, but the compressor still worked!

Most of the other things you speak of, such as schedule based temperature changes, are possible in hardware alone. Responding to electricity prices is a no-go anyways, a fridge maintains a constant internal temperature. Turning it off to save money will spoil food faster, costing you more money.

I think you come from a "software is everything" mentality, which is fine for something as complex as a smartphone, but completely the wrong way to go about things for an appliance.

Software control enables far more efficiency.

How? Like really though, what would software do to control a compressor unit that would be expensive or difficult to do on a PCB? Especially given that a little microchip to run that software likely is far more complex and expensive than the PCB itself.

Most software of that type i've written is based in control theory, which can be replicated in analog circuits fairly simply.

Surprisingly often, you even see people writing code for this type of thing using ladder diagram programms, literally designing electronic circuits to do the job that then get converted into code

> Like really though, what would software do to control a compressor unit that would be expensive or difficult to do on a PCB?

On a refrigerator:

Software can choose to run a compressor at a lower, more efficient power setting for longer when the temperature just needs to be maintained. It can automatically time a defrost cycle based on when the doors are most often opened. It can tell when the door was opened and kick in the compressor at high power to quickly return the internals to the target temperature. It can debounce the door openings, delaying the cooling cycle until the door has been closed for a while.

It's also far easier to iterate and experiment with software.

> Especially given that a little microchip to run that software likely is far more complex and expensive than the PCB itself.

Active analog components like op-amps are often more expensive than an MCU, especially if you can build up a single package with all of the components that would have been on the PCB.

Control systems with negative feedback etc are just great tools, so it's not surprise that software systems also make use of them.

I dont see any utility at all in "ability to change its temperature on a schedule". What you want in fridge is constant reliable temperature.

You can easily achieve this with a thermostat wired to the compressor. Its fully hardware based, analog and is perfectly capable of maintaining a specified temp range. This is how it was done for decades and it worked fine.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com