Right to Repair Gaining Momentum | Hacker News Reader

Right to Repair Gaining Momentum

vice.com

276 pointsfoobarbecue119 comments

I remember back when I was young opening up an older stereo my parents had and right inside was the schematic and wiring diagram for the whole machine. My father had a shop manual for his 1962 Ford Thunderbird and not only did it tell you how to fix it but it also showed how to make any needed "special tools" for the car.

I am not saying every single thing in the world is going to be user serviced...but it is a shame that in such a high tech world with access to just about any hardware/information needed we are increasingly not being "allowed to".

If we continue to allow qualified users to be stifled by DRM for the sake of increasing profits through planned obsolecence we are going to see greatly increased levels of ecological damage and waste.

I remember a time where the worst case scenario of working on your own devices was simply voiding a warranty.

It may seem like a modern tractor is a $500k machine which "simple folk" shouldn't work on...but don't forget the tractors of 50 years ago were viewed by outsiders the same way. Farmers have always been innovators of varying levels of skill...but they all have one thing in common, they don't seem to be scared of fixing stuff. IMHO, a well connected forum of tractor owners likely knows close to as much about their tractors as the company that made them...even without access to manuals.

Limiting those who tinker and innovate can do no good. It is high time we change the slogan to "reduce, reuse, repair, recycle". The very last option should be recycling...not the second.

I think of farmers as intuitive understanders of physics, chemistry, and biology. Manipulating these things is essentially what they do all day long.

> f we continue to allow qualified users to be stifled by DRM for the sake of increasing profits through planned obsolecence we are going to see greatly increased levels of ecological damage and waste.

Waste is one concern but there is also a hidden cost. Every curious person that we prevent from opening up or fixing their machine contributes to a net loss of innovation in the long run.

For me, that’s a stronger point. Nicely said.

My personal activism is to avoid purchasing DRM encumbered printers, coffee makers, multimedia streaming. This hasn't caused the world to reverse course, and there are still areas of compromise, like my cellphone, where I haven't been able to afford options that would be DRM free.

If a right to repair law falls through, is there a more effective path of consumer activism besides avoiding DRM-encumbered products?

Absolutely...that is a big part of things as well. Every less tinkerer is one less inventor/innovator.

If you look at the documentation for the purism phone, you'll find some interesting things, like how to take apart the phone and how to flash the os.

EDIT: also https://developer.puri.sm/Librem5/_downloads/librem5_evergre...

I was re-reading (ok, actually trying to finish yet again) Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance and I think some of what Pirsig says at the beginning of the book applies here.

Namely, the division between people who just want things to work and hope "somebody" else will step in when a fix is needed, and those who understand the abstraction sometimes leaks, and you need to be able to dig in and at least know how to solve some problems "under the hood". He makes a whole philosophy of "romantics" vs "classics" out of it, but I think that's irrelevant here: what matters is that no-one should be forced to be powerless about the hardware they own.

This is obviously related to the right to repair. Pirsig wasn't thinking of Apple, but he does mention John Deere!

First: I can't imagine not finishing Zen -- it is among my top ten books.

Second: I agree, no one should be forced to be "powerless" about the hardware they own. But right to repair is exactly that: I don't want a phone with a detachable battery and upgradable memory -- that means the phone isn't waterproof and/or is much thicker and heavier. I don't want to force people to have the phone I prefer, but I also don't want the kind of phone right to repair would force me to have.

I'll be you they find a way to keep the phones looking the way you want while still making them repairable. I'll bet you all that cant-be-done stuff is excuses and bullshit.

> First: I can't imagine not finishing Zen -- it is among my top ten books.

Well, I'm making a second attempt. I really liked it the first time, but it requires a certain state of enjoy -- skim reading it just won't do.

I think Pirsig would understand why it took me years. He makes a point about slowness and not rushing things, the journey vs the destination.

> I also don't want the kind of phone right to repair would force me to have.

So you're in John Sutherland's camp, with his trusty BMW R60 that requires no involvement on his part -- till it does, of course, and it frustrates him.

Just wondering: if there was a 'right to repair' on computers in the 60's, would Intel have made an integrated microprocessor? I mean: you can't just fix a dead register by replacing it anymore...

Lots of electronics have become more reliable by being fully integrated units. I prefer a durable phone to a repairable phone that needs constant replacements.

"Right to repair" doesn't mean that everything has to be actually repairable down to replacing things at the lowest level of component. It means making the same tools and information available that an authorized repair center has access to. But if the standard of repair is swapping out an entire device or PCB there's no requirement to go above and beyond that.

A lot of people seem to confuse "right of repair" with modularity/ease of repair.

I think the new EU right to repair laws require appliances to be repairable for up to ten years, this article at least seems to suggest that the intention is for a level of ease of repair especially in regards to fasteners and fittings:

> Under the new EU rules, manufacturers will have to ensure parts are available for up to a decade, though some will only be provided to professional repair companies to ensure they are installed correctly.

> New devices will also have to come with repair manuals and be made in such a way that they can be dismantled using conventional tools when they really can't be fixed anymore, to improve recycling.

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/eu...

Right to repair doesn’t mean that everything must be repairable; it means that manufacturers can’t block you from installing a replacement part (eg by requiring a key from CORP)

That is, if you could have repaired it, YOU could have repaired it

If those manufacturers want to control the quality you're getting from your appliance you're giving them no other option than to integratie everything with superglue and make all repairs impossible...

Pirsig couldn't fix or understand every component of his motorcycle, but he advocated having some degree of control over the components he did understand and knew how to fix or jury-rig. His anecdote about using tin from beer cans to jury-rig a simple fix -- and the wounded reaction to it by his friend John -- is enlightening.

It's not all or nothing.

Pragmatism and the application of it is an art all of it's own. A pragmatist may change their own clutch, but get a professional to do their wiring. It's about addressing the situation and making a reasonable choice.

Oh, fully agreed! And I think Pirsig would have agreed, too.

Regardless, you need some level of understanding to make the call. A particularly funny anecdote from the book, if you read it, is when he decides some fix is too delicate for him and takes his motorcycle to a repair shop. Right from the start he gets a bad vibe -- the mechanics are all kids listening to loud music and seemingly not paying attention to what they are doing. This is later confirmed: they return his bike without fixing the problem, then try to fix it more seriously but forget to screw some vital parts, leading to additional damage, and in the end they completely fail to fix the problem. What's important is that right from the start Pirsig got the feeling something was off about this repair shop, and he could sense this because he know enough about the components of his bike (for example, he guessed they had forgotten to screw something down simply because it's easy to miss and he knew this screw was there).

If, like his friend John, you decide "I have something else to spend my time on, better leave this to the professionals", it might seem superficially a pragmatic choice but it could also make you fail to notice the repairmen who are bad at their jobs, until it's too late and your piece of machinery fails catastrophically.

Absolutely, I have a car that sits in a specialist category these days, and there is exactly one shop I'll take it to in this city because they're experienced in all the idiosyncrasies of the platform. But I only know that because of how much time I've spent on the car myself.

My friend who has a similar car but doesn't work on it got fleeced for two years at his chosen shop, they didn't even do some of the work they billed for. Now we've got him at a specialist and it's been cheaper and better quality work.

It's not that my friend is dumb either, as with John, he was making what seemed like the smart choice with the knowledge he had, given the level of effort he was willing to put into learning about his car. He has other priorities, so perhaps the pragmatic choice for him given they're a niche car, would have been getting a recommendation from the car community about where to go.

At the same time, a durable phone is no different to one where you could replace the parts that are simply soldered together in the "durable" phone.

>Lots of electronics have become more reliable by being fully integrated units. I prefer a durable phone to a repairable phone that needs constant replacements.

Your argument might be fair but is ignoring the 99% of the complaints:

- DRM

- no schematics

- forbidding selling of spare parts

- not sharing repair tools

Maybe we should put an Apple exception so we don't trigger the fanboys then we get the right the repair for all the other electronics , fix 90% of the problem and we takle the Apple fanboys with a different law.

Imagine this scenario, you have a tool like a tractor (but could be a washing machine,printer). One day it stops working and a red light turns on. In this case the problem was something a child could fix, something got stuck in the tool and it could not open/move, you remove the thing and all is fine now. But the tool will not work until a genius will you send it to a genius to use a secret tool to read the error code, then he would notice that all is fine, press the "Reset status" button on his tool and give you a big receipt.

I imagine the Apple car, you will have a tire issue but you only an Apple genius will be able to replace the tire and the fanboys will defend the DRM locked tires with the same bad excuse "the DRM reduces tire stealing, it is not expensive for me personally to bring the car to Apple store, there are so many stores here in my city, don't buy the Apple car if you are poor , and if someone gifts you an old one throw it away, there are no parts anyway and fixing an old one would cost more then a new one )

No need to imagine...This sort of scenario already happened to someone I know with their Apple device:

They had just wiped their iPhone in an attempt to clean it up and restore the software to factory condition, and afterwards it required an OS software update for some reason (okay, sure), so this was done. After this update, some kind of "activation" was required (why?) before the device was usable at all for anything meaningful. This activation step failed, showing no particular reason for failure (only along the lines of "your iPhone couldn't be activated, call support"). Over the phone support wasn't helpful in giving any further details, so ultimately the device was brought to Apple where they used some diagnostic tools and determined that some hardware component (possibly cellular antenna?) was malfunctioning, and most likely this was preventing the activation from continuing (again, why?). The Apple tech said they could do nothing to repair the device (no hardware fix, no software fix), and as a "fix" offered only some sort of insultingly low-value buy-back option instead.

There are so many problems with this scenario:

1. Why was "activation" required to use the device at all at this point? The owner just wanted to use it to take some photos, listen to music, watch videos, and do some simple web browsing...No Apple services required, so why the forced requirement to activate the device?

2. Why was no useful information presented to the user about why the activation step failed, so they could at least attempt to troubleshoot for themselves (or with the help of someone of their choosing)?

3. Why does an otherwise unnecessary hardware sub-component (from the point of view of the device "owner" in the context of their usage) misbehaving prevent the ability to activate or otherwise use the device for some valid purpose?

I should mention that the device was out of warranty by this point, so it was not expected that any hardware repair would be at anyone's expense but the owner's, but this entire situation to me just looked like a pointless software-induced device disabling, for no good reason.

After witnessing such a situation, I can't help but wonder how much of this hostility and disrespect towards their customers is just so Apple can drive more new device sales, or what else is going on, but it certainly gave me a lot to think about where this particular company (and the industry in general) seems to be headed.

While I agree a company like Apple should do better in reporting errors like these I don't share your conclusion that's purely out of malice (and driven by profit) instead of ordinary incompetency (or lack of time, bad management etc). That's not meant in defense of Apple, but because I'm very anti-jumping to conclusions.

The iCloud activation lock is a theft prevention option that locks the phone to an iCloud account and will required activation after a factory reset. If you don't want to deal with Apple, don't set that option. If everyone in physical possession could override that it wouldn't be much of a lock at all...

All Apple policies make Apple more money. Not releasing a schematic, software to diagnose shit and forbidding selling of parts does not contribute to your device not getting stolen. All it does it make Apple more money because instead of having a thing repaired for cheap you are forced to either pay a lot of money to repair your stuff or buy a new product,

As I said I am sure the Apple car will have the tires DRMed , the excuse is to prevent stealing but the reason is to use only Apple tires, installed by Apple geniuses on your Apple car(probably will require also Apple only oils and even the water for your windscreen must be installed by a genius and be a special Apple water).

No, but Intel should offer replacement parts for a reasonable time for what can be replaced. I don't know if RAM slots or a BIOS ROM chip are actually resolderable, but if they are then those parts should be offered for example.

>"electronics have become more reliable"

Is that actually true? I have a 20 year old TV and a projector that still work, and I would be very surprised if my current one will last that long.

I expect simple LCD + LED lasts longer than average CRT.

There’s another distinction. Some people will replace broken parts with new parts. And some people will repair that part, sometimes inventing and building new tools on the fly. Former is relatively easy and one should just follow manuals to succeed. Latter is some kind of art, which requires flexible mind and tons of experience.

That reminds me... I was converting some VHS tapes for a family member and one was of an event on a farm where a trailer had tipped over in a slope damaging something on the axel.

Cut to a short time later and the clip continues with the farmers welding and repairing using logs to prop up parts of it.

They would have been seriously impacted if they needed too wait for days/weeks for a appointment to have it repaired.

There is no excuse for having something not be repairable, especially if you have the knowledge and need to be able to repair your things.

The thing is even if people don't wanna repair themselves they might wanna change a battery. Or get something minor done cheaply by a 3rd party. But Apple goes so far out of the way to kill third party repair. They even put special screws in their machines to screw you.

Edit: The EU pushed right to repair, right? Now see what Apple did to screw France [1]. Their latest and greatest devices somehow have a repairability score of around 6.5/10. How is it possible?

[1] https://appleinsider.com/articles/21/02/26/apple-now-display...

The score is based on 5 categories:

1.documentation available

2.ease of repair

3.availability of spare parts

4.price or spare parts

5.category specific to the product (not the same for a washing machine or a computer).

Each of them give you a score out of 20, and the total is divided by 10. So you can have 0 on the 2., making the phone hard to repair, but still having a 8/10 score.

In the end its similar to Booking reviews, where 6/10 is very low and you want to avoid this hotel.

Details (in French) https://www.ecologie.gouv.fr/indice-reparabilite

Thanks for explaining. That's unbelievable. That's a really stupid law right? I mean elementary-school-kid-bypassable kinda stupid.

But apple:

1.doesnt provide any repair documentation at all

2.even Apple themselves dont repair in house, and instead replace devices.

3.doesnt offer spare part at all _unless_ you sign up to their "share all of your clients personal data and your accounting books with us" program, and even then its only batteries and screens at massive margins (more than whole working used device).

4.see above

5.no idea what goes there

So we end up at 4 x 0.

Their scores on number 5 give them 2 points already (notification of update and their content, free shipping for repairs, able to re-install software). On most of the rest (like number 4 access and price of parts) they get a shitty score of between 1.6 and 0.9

I love the right to repair and also Apple products. I have seen over the years how they have struggled back and forth with the line between what they want to allow customers to do and what they want to do. Sometimes I'm disappointed by their decisions. Many times I am impressed with how they handle themselves.

They have fixed multiple out of warranty problems for free or for parts-only, where other companies would have charged much more to do so. I think they don't flaunt this customer service because they don't want people to take it for granted, and they don't want to attract the type of customer that would abuse the policy.

Our 13 year old Miele dishwasher broke last week. I had a service call booked but cancelled because it wouldn't be worth the parts and labour costs of multiple hundreds (good chance something else will break next year).

I had a lot of fun tearing it apart and seeing how it's made and as a longshot to fixing it myself. I think I could have fixed it myself if I had access to parts and some blocks to put it on to look underneath when it's running, but alas I don't have any of that so it's probably going to be tossed. But the nice thing is, it was always an option to spend the time to fix it. I feel like I learned something and if anything else breaks I'm more confident.

At least I learned something, enjoyed myself despite a cut finger or two, and saw all the general wear and tear in various parts which made me feel better about replacing the whole thing.

I definitely think it's a good idea. The other week my girlfriend's Western Digital external drive stopped working, I wanted to open it to figure out if it was the drive itself or the sata-to-USB logic. Took me 20 minutes to open the case, and I damaged it significantly in the process. Turns out that it was only the USB adapter that was out of order, I bought a cheap-o USB 3 case and now it works again.

Yesterday I wanted to fix the light on a USB wallsocket I have, I gave up because after 10 minutes I couldn't figure out how to even open the thing up. I tried squeezing it, tapping it in various parts, prying at various seams, nothing would give.

That being said, I really wonder how you could regulate this easily. Lack of screws could be argued to be beneficial for aesthetics for instance. Modern smartphones are a pain to repair in no small part because size is very important so everything is crammed together, and highly integrated components are usually smaller and yield better economies of scale.

I think it's a good idea, but I'm really not sure how it could be implemented well.

In my opinion, I think the best way to implement this is something like the repairability labels, like how it's done in the EU. Not sure how to pick who gets to decide what goes on the labels, however.

> Yesterday I wanted to fix the light on a USB wallsocket I have, I gave up because after 10 minutes I couldn't figure out how to even open the thing up. I tried squeezing it, tapping it in various parts, prying at various seams, nothing would give.

Did you try looking up the manual? Even if the steps for removing it aren't documented, you can often walk the installation steps in reverse order.

Visible serial + some documentation would help a great deal.

Classic WD. So you dodged a bullet. I had WD drive that USB board failed and that board contained encryption key. So I lost data even if I could install the board from other drive. And they had a nerve to advertise this as a feature pro consumer! (It encrypted the data even if you didn't turn encryption on)

That's some serious bullshit logic from them. What the fuck does encryption do if the key is stored right next to the drive?

The key is always stored with the data either on the drive itself in an unencrypted hidden partition or on an attached storage/security coprocessor.

The key is encrypted with a KEK which is derived from a users password.

What many of these encrypted drives do is just always run the encryption but with either a default key which is all zeros or with an unencrypted key until the user enrolls into the encryption feature at which point the key will be encrypted with their password or fingerprint.

Wow that's actually really sad. Imagine that happening to people without backups (means many regular people).

The way I do it is I format the drive on Linux. Then format it as ext4 with LUKS encryption. Were you on Windows?

The encryption is transparent, the key is stored on a security coprocessor if the encryption isn’t “turned on” the key simply isn’t encrypted with a KEK which is derived from your password.

Sometimes the default key is also all zeros/ones until the user has initialized the encryption function at which a random key is generated and encrypted with a KEK.

W/E you format the drive with or too or how you use it doesn’t matter, you don’t have raw access to drives anymore (sectors, clusters etc don’t mean anything anymore) with or without encryption the controller basically emulates an “ideal drive” to the OS and does it’s own thing.

> USB wallsocket [...] I couldn't figure out how to even open the thing up.

In my country, wall sockets are often riveted closed, because (a) they gotta be cheap, and (b) they've got a bunch of screw terminals, and they're worried with any more screws some dumbass will undo the wrong ones.

Lucky, Seagate external drives integrate USB bridge on hdd pcb, there is no sata, you would have to desolder bga chip and tap pcb traces.

> Connecticut, Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Washington state are all considering broad [right-to-repair] laws that would apply to most of the stuff we use everyday.

Meanwhile, in Sacramento, it is illegal to repair your own car at your own home.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26421495

Massachusetts had to go for round 2 of their legislation because Tesla in particular was using a loophole to get around it: https://www.vice.com/en/article/93wy8v/newly-passed-right-to...

Just looked into that law. It does exist https://code-enforcement.saccounty.net/Programs/pages/autore... I remember when I lived in SF and I would repair my own car and everyone kinda looked at me weird. Maybe it was because people probably thought I was stealing a catalytic converter or something.

This is a bit misleading. The Sacramento regulation appears to be about zoning to dissuade commercial repair operations on residential grounds.

This is bad, but is not really "anti repair" any more than not being allowed to operate a bar/food service business out of your own home.

Unfortunately the law is more draconian. The FAQ of the law provided by a comment below says

1. only minor repairs are explicitly allowed 2. only using tools found in a typical household. 3. it lists specific examples of what is allowed (brakes, oil, tire changes) and says all repairs must be like that 4. Must be in an enclosed space if the repair takes more than 24 hours (so no restoring an old beauty on your private driveway).

Pretty much only trivial fixes are allowed.

https://code-enforcement.saccounty.net/Programs/pages/autore...

I worked on an old Honda Odyssey that I bought used from a friend for $100. It took at least $2000 in parts but I could find all the parts on RockAuto.com (The site is ugly but functional). Just like cars, in the long-run, I think bringing products to market which are repairable will help create trust between manufacturer and end-user. In fact, the resale value of an older item depends on the affordability of the repair.

Unfortunately, Tesla is starting to build their battery packs in-frame so it'll become harder to repair. https://electrek.co/2021/01/19/tesla-structural-battery-pack...

I'm kinda hoping that there will be legislation or standardization for battery packs. As it stands, when that battery pack is end-of-life, the whole car will be scrapped because it's not financially viable to have a new one installed.

But if it's standardized, if it's EOL the battery pack can be replaced with either a new, better battery (e.g. solid state) or a refurbished / secondhand battery. And the EOL battery pack handed in for refurbishment, which hopefully significantly reduces cost.

Then again, I'm reading that the average car is scrapped after about 14 years. Might be high-end Model S-es may live longer, but if we get more cheap EVs, refurbishing the battery won't be viable no matter how cheap they make it.

According to many sources, for example this CNET article, cars are one of the best-recycled products around, with "86%" (according to this article) of the material in a car recycled to use again:

https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/recyclable-cars-what-part...

That sort of metric is counting by weight, which I'm not sure can be directly compared to other products. Google says the average compact car weights 1324 kg, the un-recyclable porition of that is equivalant to one hell of a lot of iPhones.

If the battery costs 75% of the car does it make sense to try to refurbish it? There are old model S cars on the road with half a million miles on and still usable range. After that kind of mileage I expect the rest of the car to be pretty worn too...

A real shame since electric cars are extremely simple. There’s not a panoply of different parts that slowly wear out and need to be troubleshooted separately and replaced at different times. It’s basically the battery pack and brakes.

There are suspension systems, heating/AC, doors, sunroofs, motors controlling windows and doors, sealants around the same, lights, infotainment systems, seats and seat controls and motors controlling these, power steering, heat pumps, multiple cameras (each of which can fail), huge numbers of sensors (including radar), as well as wiring between the cameras and sensors and all other other components, differentials, brakes, brake regeneration, transmission (yes, Tesla has a transmission, just a simple one), engine, and battery.

All of these can suffer failure and require replacing. Even if they are unlikely to wear out in normal circumstances, people get into fender benders, and there are always exceptional circumstances. Given the huge number of parts and miles of wiring, the average owner can expect exceptional failures on a few parts. All modern cars are extremely complex, even if the drivetrain is simplified.

No oil changes, water pump, fuel pump, valves, spark plugs, radiator, alternator, starter, ignition system, oxygen sensors, etc. The amount of parts that go into a functioning internal combustion engine is quite staggering.

The unfortunate part of this is that ICE cars are effectively trashed once the engine seizes. Replacing the engine is almost always more expensive than replacing the car, and many things can still wear out once the engine is replaced.

If you look at the 10k, 50k, 100k maintenance on EVs is almost a joke[1].

1. https://www.myev.com/research/ev-101/what-does-it-take-to-ma...

> If you look at the 10k, 50k, 100k maintenance on EVs is almost a joke

So then you should have no problem buying an out of warranty Tesla - it should be inexpensive to maintain, right?

This is the difference between theory and practice. Even though ICE engines are more complex (true) they are nevertheless well understood, the manufacturing process has been refined, and there is a robust aftermarket and network of independent dealers so that costs are controlled. One thousand dollar door handle replacement on your Tesla (https://forums.tesla.com/discussion/90061/door-handle-not-fu...) is going to make up for a lot of oil changes.

The issue with PEV is that these are new components and the manufacturers have locked down the supply chain so you have to go to the manufacturer. That's how you get these insane repair costs and why right to repair and a robust third party market is so important.

Each time someone suggests how much cheaper to maintain the EVs are, ask them why no EV manufacturer is offering a 20 year 200,000 mile warranty. If the costs are really 90% lower, then this should be easy to do. And Tesla should easily be able to set aside only 10% of what other automakers set aside for warranty reserves. Yet we see that

"Business news publication Barron’s calculated that Tesla's third quarter additions to the warranty reserve were 2.7% of the company's car sales – slightly higher than the auto industry average of 2.5%. That’s despite the fact that electric engines have fewer parts that are subject to wear than internal combustion engines, making them potentially cheaper to maintain." https://fortune.com/2020/03/04/tesla-warranties-accounting-p...

But again, there is a difference between theory and practice, between a well understood, mature system and a new system. If you don't believe me, then go ahead and buy that out of warranty car with lots of new tech and see how it works out for you. I'll wait.

This is so backwards. If they want electric cars to dominate, they need interchangeable, standardized batteries that can be swapped out by machines at gas stations just like stopping for gas. You'll never have batteries that charge quickly enough for a cross-country trip and have range.

A good, and easy, first step would be for states to adopt laws that have the same requirements as Massachusetts. Many companies already comply with their right to repair laws, so it would be relatively quick and easy to comply with the same laws elsewhere.

The second step would be to support MA (or some other state) in adopting even more consumer (and environmentally) friendly right to repair laws, especially for: consumer electronics; automotive; large and small home appliances; and farm equipment. Then everyone else can piggyback on those laws by adopting similar ones themselves.

How does this entire article have no references to the DMCA and copyright?

Like, the ENTIRETY of the "right-to-repair" issue could be resolved by repealing the worst parts (or all of) the DMCA and updating copyright law with respect to machine code or object code to make it fair for buyers.

If I buy a book, cut it up and make a collage, the original author can't claim copyright.

Do the same with some object code, you break the law.

Let’s hope so. As an old farm boy and a do-it-yourselfer that grew up in the farm shop fixing equipment, few things get my blood boiling as much as the current machinery software lock-downs.

It's a brave new world. Fortunately, we have Russian hackers by our side generously sharing their code to bypass DRM in farm equipment.

A US law mandating right to repair could really improve domestic electronics knowledge and capability. So much of that work is out sourced to a foreign manufacturer, as rebuilding is cheaper than repairing. If consumers or even a handful of specialized shops had repair-level knowledge in micro electronics, it would set the stage for all sorts of innovation and new products.

I don't want a bulky, heavy, non waterproof, and less reliable smartphone (due to more moveable parts) just to have a easily replaceable battery.

Right to repair is not about making devices more repairable but about enabling us to buy parts and service from third parties outside the manufacturers.

Apple has begun serializing parts. You cannot take a camera from one iPhone 12 and put it into another iPhone 12 because Apple serialized the camera to the phone it shipped with. They are beyond reasonable with this kind of hostile approach to repair.

I think Apple is justifiably terrified of a 3rd party battery, installed by someone with 5 minutes of training, causing a fire and making headlines.

Okay, then why is the camera serialized and not the battery (which, incidentally, you CAN replace on the iPhone 12)?

Just guessing:

- it's a component of the Face ID authentication scheme

- they don't want people using iPhones with sub-par camera's posting on social media

- they don't want iPhones with sub-par camera's on the second hand market

Then don't let it take sub-par cameras. I don't give a rats ass about serialized components as long as I can still buy and install the factory parts.

The cameras have nothing to do with face ID, and its not just that 3rd parts cameras arent compatable, but even oem cameras arent without access to apple's systems called ast2 and gsx

> Okay, then why is the camera serialized and not the battery (which, incidentally, you CAN replace on the iPhone 12)?

on my macbook I can see the battery serial number in System Information under the Power section and the camera unique ID under the Camera section. not sure why it would be any different on the iphone.

How is a 3rd party battery related to replacing an apple iphone camera with an apple iphone camera?

Because there are also off-brand "Apple iPhone camera's" (for instance QC failures from the factory, third shifts or clones)

There are no 3rd party iphone camera's for recent iphones.

Apple blocks replacing an iphone camera with an iphone camera using their software.

iPhone 12 is unrepairable: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnG3h3Jewq4

Apple (and authorizaed repair shops) can and will repair iPhone 12's.

Just wondering how often you'd need camera repair. I've never heard of someone needing a camera replacement for their phone, so to me this looks like a guy inflating a niche problem to enormous proportions to make a point for his sponsors.

Louis is a repair guy, not some guy working "for his sponsors."

The camera is an example of unrepairability.

Do replacement cameras and screens cause fires too?

Worse, they cause unsatisfied customers who don't want their next phone to be an Apple.

I bought some OEM stuff for my car. I bet Ford are fuming that I've devalued their product. If someone replaced a camera and weren't happy with it, at least they could try another.

I bet they are when you're passing it on as a 'genuine' Ford part when you're selling the car.

That's a problem for Apple. Why is it a problem for consumers?

I imagine the used market would be flooded with "iPhones" filled with non-genuine parts. Non genuine parts often don't interact well with things like firmware updates.

So by this logic all automobiles should only be serviced by the manufacturer. Somehow I think we'd manage to figure something out for a product that is orders of magnitude less dangerous than an automobile.

That's already the case for the more complicated parts. Also, at least here in the EU, if you want factory warranty you have to follow the dealer schedule and do the necessary replacements.

Apple is terrified of bad headlines? That's news to me.

Why should my rights to do as I please with my property suffer because of what Apple wants.

Last time I checked, i didnt lease the iPhone, I bought it. This is a straight up violation of property rights

we pay full price for these products, but we have no control of any sort!

If we let this continue, we will live in a world where the manufacturer of a smart bottle decides when you stop drinking, the manufacturer of a TV decides that you shouldn't be watching porn, etc.

Waterproof phones can have replaceable parts. IIRC the "rugged" type phones on the market tend to use gaskets.

The rugged phones are also significantly larger and more expensive.

It's not about changing the phone, it's about making the OEM tools, parts and service information available to independent shops so they can repair a waterproof phone the same way someone at the manufacturer does the same repair.

I suppose if an individual wants to buy an expensive tool to do a single repair that would be available to the individual too, but that's not typically what I would expect when we're talking about cases that involve an expensive tool.

For example, Chevy dealers have to buy a $15,000 lift/harness to lower and service or replace the battery in a chevy volt. In Massachusetts, that harness would be available to independent mechanics and consumers too, but I doubt any consumers actually buy it. However, at least the independent shops can and that means consumers can take it somewhere other than a Chevy dealer if they want.

There's a good argument to be made around helping local economies with this as well. Part of auto's impact during the 20th century was creating all these small businesses of car dealers, auto repair shops, oil change stations, gas station attendants, etc. The products of the 21st century largely don't enable any of that, the money just all goes to Apple and Samsung. And like, I don't immediately think to call up a local electronics repair specialist, I go to the Apple Store. And more likely than not I usually replace my phone before considering heavy repairs since its usually a couple years old at that point anyway.

Exactly this. People who want phones like this should be able to have them, but not at the cost of me being forced to have one too.

Well, they only "should be able to have them" to the degree that there's a sufficient market for someone to make and sell them. There are no guarantees that the product you want to buy is one for which there's a sufficient market to sell.

That depends, does what you want cause greater harm to society than the alternative? Does manufacturing less repairable devices cause more to be disposed of more quickly? Ideally with the environmental concerns we face, making what we already have last as long as reasonably possible is the least we can do.

This assumes that repairable devices on net cause less waste which may not be the case for smartphones. Lighter, waterproof, with no moving parts for battery swapping can lead to much longer lasting devices.

They don't throw away the entire iPhone when they replace your battery. Right to repair would mean you as a consumer have access to the tools and hardware needed to make the repair.

Should software companies give access to source code so that users can fix bugs?

Yes

This, I believe, was the original driver for Richard Stallman to start the GNU project.

The story I heard him tell was about two printers at MIT.

An old one with source code available which they were able to upgrade with many new network features.

The other a modern one with better performance but closed source software.

Stallman actually found out that a colleague had been given access to the source code but told explicitly not to allow other MIT staff to see it.

That infuriated him enough to create the Free Software movement.

Yes, depending on the audience. If it's a software library, it should be open source—devs are likely to benefit from reading the source, if not likely to contribute fixes. If it's some kind of SaaS or mobile app, maybe nobody will take the time to contribute anything worthwhile. But I would say iPhones and tractors are widely used, expensive, and have capable audiences, making them great candidates for right to repair/contribute/learn. John Deere and Apple have simply found that they can make more money by forcing users to come to them for repairs.

> When your stuff breaks, you should be able to fix it yourself.

This concept is inherently flawed. These complex devices were built by teams of highly skilled and specialized engineers. The concept that you should be able to repair it with a screwdriver and a 6-pack is outdated.

I grew up on a cattle ranch, and we had lots of tractors and equipment -- some of it over 100 years old. I rebuilt an International Farmall Model B Tractor with my Dad when I was 14. And it was a lot of fun to go around to old junk yards and find the parts we needed. This tractor was built in the 1940s and I think that's what people think of when they think tractors.

I learned how clean an maintain simple engines, how to organize parts so I could confidently take something apart and put it back together again, how to bend and weld metal. It was a great project. Totally 100% think every kid should do something like this. When the tractor was done, and repainted, I got to drive it in a parade.

When we were putting that tractor back together... a lot of times bolts needed to be cut, drilled out, holes re-tooled, or just welded back into place. And while it looked fine, there's no way someone should think we were professionals. I'd be scared if someone took that tractor and tried to do real work with it.

There was one place in particular, where I used a bunch of bailing wire to hold a non-visible part where it needed to be held. And it worked OK for driving in a parade. But if someone had attached something to the PTO shaft... and it needed significant torque, I'm guessing the bailing wire MacGyver patch job would have caused catastrophic failure.

And that's fine, if it happens as soon as you do it, but like, what if it happened while you were working in the field, or what if someone else (20+ years later) starts the tractor up and uses it -- not knowing that my splice is in place? It makes the machine fundamentally unreliable, unsafe.

Now... that was an 80 years old tractor. Fast forward to today, when the machines have conservatively 1,000 times more power. Ranchers cut corners all the time... can't wait a week for parts? Just splice something. But how does the software know to account for that? It's expecting a load of 1,000 pounds and it adjusts hydraulics accordingly... but what if due to the "fix" it can now only support a load of 300 pounds?

And let's say someone is hurt? Is that on John Deere? Or the Rancher who bought the tractor 2nd hand at an auction? Is that on the insurance company, that has to insure equipment that costs 10s if not 100s of thousands of dollars that get plugged into the tractor and rely on it operating to spec? It's just such a massive can of worms.

So let's then add the software element. And assume that some fixes are going to not just be hardware, but software-related as well. Would that mean that John Deere, or Apple, or anyone, would have to make their code open-source -- for all of their competitors to review as well? Or provide peer review if you want to make a change? For how long? Like let's assume tractors today last as long as the tractor I rebuilt with my Dad in the 90s... 50 years? Wonder how you even factor in 1/2 a century of support in to the purchase cost. Oof.

Anyway, it's just a mess. People over simplify it, "I should be able to fix my bike, so I should be able to fix this $500,000 tractor..." and at some point it just doesn't scale.

And, like others have said... I really don't want to have to run my phone through some sort of unit testing / compliance check every time I go to get on an airplane. Batteries, and phone software... they're a whole other complex issue. Even what we have now, with 3rd Party batteries... it's pretty risky.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but does your argument reduce down to "some people could possibly do things wrong, therefore we should give monopoly-power to Apple to fix our products, and trust that they won't overcharge us"?

I do think it's fair for Apple to say, "Hey, we can't ensure this device is properly repaired unless we are the ones to repair it." Maybe some sort of "Apple-certified repair place" program... I think that exists today. I don't think Apple should be forced to sell raw parts; it's not part of their business model. You're free to buy more modular hardware... things you can easily repair. That's a selling point, right? But Apple should be free to do business however they want to do business. You're free not to buy Apple products, but you shouldn't be free, as a consumer, to insist they make schematics and parts available. You can choose to support companies that sell parts if you want! (=

EDIT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leFuF-zoVzA - seems about as good as you can hope for. Pretty sure Apple isn't keen on "DIY" for their brand.

>The concept that you should be able to repair it with a screwdriver and a 6-pack is outdated.

Nobody is saying that. Right to repair is basically the right for independent repair shops to even be able to acquire the equipment and parts necessary to do repairs. If an individual has the capital, and wishes to perform their own repairs, then yes that is an option.

Apple prevents you from taking two brand new authentic iPhone 12s and swapping the cameras. In this case, both cameras are authentic Apple hardware. For what reason should that not be permitted?

Because a phone is more than just parts and software. There's knowledge and training required to take it apart and put it back together correctly. And in something as simple as swapping out the cameras, you're taking the case apart, unplugging wires, undoing tape, maybe even some glue... and all of that is still under Apple Warranty.

Do you really want Apple Care to be more of a pain? I love that you can go in... even when you like drop the device... and be like, "Hey can you replace this?" They've got great support. If you force them to start covering all the stuff people home-repair too... oof. Guarantee that experience of having great care goes away as they have to cover their ass from people who broke their devices while trying to repair them.

Anyway, Apple is a bad example... Apple Care is great, and fairly cheap.

John Deere is a bad example... because of reliability and safety concerns from non-professionals doing repairs.

Give me a good example? A non-computerized vacuum? Most all of those systems are easy enough to repair without a law.

Some of the "right to repair" laws I've seen seem to imply you need to make it so the battery is easy to swap in and out without tools. Oof, like I don't want that phone that has a battery that comes out / isn't water proof / is an inch thick. I had those in the 90s / 00s. I don't want to go back to that.

I'm pretty in favor of right-to-repair, but I came here to see if any one had good reasons for not having right-to-repair (or limiting it). Thanks for providing this alternative view point!

It probably doesn't apply to phones, but the liability is an interesting question, especially for equipment with a lifetime of decades.

It's unfortunate that it appears the downvote is going the way of reddit here, to show disagreement rather than something being off topic or taking away from the conversation.

> The concept that you should be able to repair it with a screwdriver and a 6-pack is outdated.

I agree. But no one asks for that.

It is my understanding that the "right to repair" initiative, as presented by Louis Rossmann, only asks that the people who are willing to do the repair themselves are able to get the replacement parts, the tools (e.g. custom screwdrivers, flash programmers ...) and the expertise (e.g. schematics, binary or API specifications, ...) necessary to perform it. It does not ask that the repair should require no skills.

> and at some point it just doesn't scale

To the best of my knowledge, the mentioned "right to repair" initiative does not ask that it should be possible to e.g. repair a tractor using only bike shop tools. It merely asks that an independent tractor repair shop should be able to do it. And for that it would need parts, tools and expertise to be available.

> it's pretty risky

Yes. If repairs are performed without proper parts, without proper tools and without proper expertise, they are risky. That is also one of the reasons why the right to repair asks for those to be available.

===

There is an argument that limiting the availability of parts, tools and expertise would limit the number of people attempting to perform the repairs. That would, in theory, in turn limit the number of people that would perform those repairs without the necessary skills, which might potentially be dangerous to the customers.

However, I am not sure if such limiting measures, when applied, have the desired outcome. I think that the demand for repairs is primarily driven by the rate at which the particular kind of devices need it. It is not going to magically go down just because parts, tools and expertise are unavailable.

Consider the availability of schematics for MacBooks, for example. They are not available officially. But it is possible to get them via shady channels. The operation of such channels is risky because it is often illegal. But it is nevertheless being done because there is a large demand for it.

That is why I think that limiting the availability of parts, tools and expertise would not have the desired effect of less people attempting the repairs. It seems more likely to me that the number of people who would be attempting the repairs would remain roughly the same. But since the parts, tools and expertise would be coming via shady channels, they may not be of the sufficient quality. As a result, even some of the people who have the sufficient skills would not be able to provide the repairs of the high-enough quality to be indistinguishable from the repairs provided by the manufacturer.

Therefore, I think that such availability-limiting measures make sub-optimal repairs more frequent, which is exactly the opposite of the goal they are trying to achieve.

> Consider the availability of schematics for MacBooks, for example. They are not available officially. But it is possible to get them via shady channels. The operation of such channels is risky because it is often illegal. But it is nevertheless being done because there is a large demand for it.

If you buy a BMW, you drive all around town and get told by auto places, "Hey I don't work on BMWs." You end up taking it to a dealer, or an approved repair place. I don't see why a phone or tractor or anything else should be different.

If you want something that's got modular parts / open schematics... make that a consideration when buying. It comes off as, "We want a premium product, but we don't want to pay a premium repair price or use approved parts... rather just sort of have it be an Apple case with Bubba's MacBook Repair & Tackle Shop approved parts... and Bubba can warranty the labor." Oof.

Apple is pretty up front with their products, if you buy an Apple product odds are if it ever needs to be serviced you'll have to take it to an Apple Store. AND... the kicker... they have great service.

A schematic isn't enough. Like you'd have to provide order of operations for disassembly (at least some training), odds are tolerances for glue / tape removal, etc. Doesn't seem unreasonable for Apple to say, "Hey we make a premium product, and we're the only ones with expertise in the care of that product. If you don't want an Apple laptop, you're free to buy Bubba's DIY Laptop built with 100% Organic Duct Tape!" And plenty of PCs went that route in the 90s / 00s. Open architecture was a selling point.

> they have great service

Apple typically does not perform component-level repairs. They tend to replace larger parts like motherboards, display assemblies or cases piece for piece, which is cheap and quick for them and expensive for the customer. And it also typically means that the customer will lose their data. I am not sure on what basis can such a service be considered "great".

On top of that, Louis Rossmann has published multiple videos showing the sheer incompetence of Apple's official Genius Bar service. For example:

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2_SZ4tfLns (Apple's suggested "solution" to a bent pin issue was to replace the logic board and the top case)

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RlVC3xwJN0 (Apple is unable to resolve an issue with the SSD, bends a display cable pin in the process and tells the customer that there might be a motherboard issue)

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyxmFucVy7M (Apple spends $ 10,000 while troubleshooting an "issue" of backlight being turned all the way down)

> And it also typically means that the customer will lose their data.

If they don’t back up, that’s on the customer.

Look, I’ve never had a bad go with Apple. Other than once I walked in and tried to buy 25 laptops for a startup and they wouldn’t sell me that many without an appointment.

I’ve had great experiences with Apple Care where they replaced a 3 year-old laptop with a brand new one because a part failed.

Are there bound to be people who had bad experiences, sure. But like… if they are all the sort of people who don’t backup their data… kind of hard to take that seriously. You have to be a realist.

In any event, if you think the ability to repair is so important then you should only buy products that you know are easy to repair. I don’t necessarily care about this, and I don’t really want a phone with a battery flap to make it easier to remove, or that isn’t water proof. I vote with my wallet, and you should too. And that said, you shouldn’t try and circumvent my ability to vote on with my wallet and I shouldn’t try and circumvent your ability to vote with your wallet. Apple has done ok by me, rather they keep doing what they are doing - following the market and building the best quality devices (in my opinion) out there.

Right to repair is great. Of course, 99% of us will end up bricking our phone if we tried to replace the screen or battery.

That's FUD

We would like the right to take our phones to independent specialists to have them repair them with equivalent parts to the original where possible.

It's the case that in the EU and UK (for now) that we can take our cars to qualified independent service centres without invalidating our warrantees.

We want the same for our phones and other devices.

I have a soft bricked Xiaomi phone with a locked bootloader. I haven't seen any need to unlock it, because I was fine with its OS (It is an AndroidOne phone with stock Android). One day the phone froze while I was listening to music, and upon a forced restart, it stuck on bootloop. An issue that should have been fairly easy to fix with a reset, or at worst with a reflash of the original ROM. But turned out that I could not do any of those with a locked bootloader. Later I've found out that Android phones have an "Emergency Download Mode" (EDL) that you can access by short-circuiting 2 test points on motherboard. Since I couldn't find a better option, I've opened my phone and tried to flash "the original", Xiaomi released ROM, but blocked yet again from doing so, because Xiaomi also locked the EDL mode. Only authorized Xiaomi personnel can flash "their" phones through EDL mode. I didn't know any of that when I bought my phone, there was zero mention for bootloaders on user manual, EDL lock was added after a software update (which I've learned years later, as it wasn't mentioned on release notes). So, my phone is waiting for benevolent hackers to find "exploits" in its bootloader to be usable again.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com