Hacker News Reader

Comment by xyst | Hacker News Reader

Apple's fight against right to repair while pushing materials to the public that state they are trying to reduce their carbon footprint is the absolute peak of hypocrisy. I understand the closed off design of their products is a result of the Steve Jobs era, but why can't the current leadership make a change?

Why can't Apple make their products easily repairable while making them aesthetically pleasing? The typical "private companies must satisfy the shareholders" answer is just a scapegoat. Truly innovative companies (and companies of Apple's size and worth) should be able to solve these problems. Doing anything else is just fucking laziness.

View on HN

Apple’s business and design philosophies revolve around control. In exchange for locking down everything, they promise you a seamless, high-performance, safe experience. That extends to designing products in a way that end-user repair is not a consideration, to locking down access to the App Store (see the Epic trial), and more.

I personally think it’s a bad direction to go in, especially with the outsized power Apple has over the industry, but they have clearly found willing audiences for it.

As a Apple developer it is not a "seamless, high-performance, safe experience". Anything but.

You're not the customer, you're the product.

Not in this case mate. I paid them.

I am the creative cutting edge!

Paying doesn’t magically make them not want to extract all of your value. Apple could sell iPhones at a loss just because of the AppStore theft, and still survive.

Paying them encourages them!!

Silly, silly, me

They are focused on the users - not the developers. We already have a sense of the insane dark patterns developers can deliver on the web. Pop up and under ads with unhittable close boxes, recurring subscriptions that can only be cancelled in narrow windows by calling a UK phone number.

Seriously - look at the coalition Epic put together for their trial. Almost everyone on there has some sort of abusive billing process / history.

> They are focused on the users - not the developers.

I'm a former Mac dev--I think Apple likes to use this argument to justify a lot of their choices, but in reality their design decisions often make life difficult for developers in ways that aren't beneficial to the customers.

My former company produced screen recording software, and since I started in 2018 to when I left at the end of 2020 each MacOS release required us to spend a good 3 months fixing our apps to run under the new OSes. Notarization required us to change how we signed our libraries and integrated them across the 3 applications we produced; the permissions paradigm for mic and webcam was beautiful, and easy to develop around, but when they added screen recording permissions it was truly awful, and they broke their own patterns. APIs would be deprecated with no replacement, documentation was sparse at best, with header files often being more useful than the examples provided on developer.apple.com....

My point being, we often spent more time bending our app to Apple's will than fixing bugs or adding much-requested features. Apple's argument was that these changes they forced us to make was net-beneficial for end users: less malware with notarization, better privacy controls with permissions--but when it really came down to it, they just want more control over distribution of apps and "special treatment" for their own tooling.

They're focused on making money and fuck all else.

Apple is the literal definition of "insane dark patterns" if you happen to be a developer.

Made a profitable app on the app store? Oh look! Apple used your market data to clone it, shoved their product to the top of the "marketplace" they happen to own, and now you have no business.

Want to improve your user experience by shipping a compliant browser rendering engine? Oh... we're so sorry, only Apple can "safely" let the user view the web, using safari, where they hoover up more data.

Want to debug on a variety of hardware/software combinations to better support users? Oh... sadly the licensing agreement forbids virtualization - Go spend 10k on physical devices.

Basically - Apple is a shit company that happens to have interests that are currently aligned with customer value (in some places). They will not remain that company.

Benevolent dictatorships are by far the best form of government you can get - as long as you're in the in group. The problem is you never stay there forever: Either you will change, or the company will change. See the turmoil happening now around Google products. See the backlash MS got in the 90/2000s.

They are definitely not optimizing for developers.

BUT when developers complain about apple "hoovering" up data I laugh. I mean, is this a joke? App developers are at the forefont of privacy protection? When I'm on my PC browsing the web and that game site wants to install that browser toolbar they are looking out for me?

The problem is - as I said, developers have almost no credibility anymore.

Seriously loot boxes, pay to win etc etc.

Apple has realized that doing something quasi right by their users means they can charge big premiums and a lot more. So they are going to rake in the cash on that basis - fantastic.

End user repair most certainly is a consideration. They considered it and wholeheartedly rejected it.

Funnily enough Macbooks were way more repairable when Jobs was still alive. Apple seems to be getting only worse each passing year.

It was such a different philosophy back then even just 10 years ago. The RAM modules were easy to access and work with. The battery could be accessed with your finger and a latch, because it was assumed users would need a new battery in a few years. The HD was also accessible from this same door, because it was assumed users would be upgrading to an SSD in a few years. Users were given all the IO Apple thought they would possibly need.

Then Tim Cook came to power and let Jony Ive have free reign of the glue and the solder iron, and Macbooks became disposable.

It's because they can see the bigger picture, beyond these 2010s-era complaints of 'user-upgradable RAM.' This is totally irrelevant in a SOC world.

Apple is indeed reducing the carbon footprint of computer manufacturing, by consolidating more and more components on a single chip (SOC) with M1, and creating smaller and smaller hardware.

There's a ridiculous amount of carbon footprint saved by not having to source, ship, and assemble separate RAM, GPUs, Processors, etc from separate suppliers located all across the world.

10 years from now when your entire motherboard and all its components sit inside a chip small enough to fit inside a single AirPod...and 20 years from now when the need for physical LCD/OLED panels disappears...does it really matter how repairable it is? Even 100 million of them won't fill a single average-sized landfill.

Hell, we've already broke 1nm [1]. This means hardware will continue to get smaller and smaller for years to come.

Hardware consolidation and physical size reduction is the bigger gain, and the goal we all should be focused on if we actually care about sustainability.

The fact is, only a tiny minority of consumers would even entertain the idea of replacing computer components in the first place. This has been true for the 4 decades PCs have been around with easily replaceable hardware, so I don't think Apple changing to Philips head screws is going to change that.

[1] https://technosports.co.in/2021/05/20/tsmc-mit-and-ntu-annou...

Yeah no that's bullshit. (and a change of subject)

We're not asking for modular connectors (although those are nice) or larger competents. we're asking Apple (and everyone imitating them) to stop artificially preventing people from replacing parts (either via deals with suppliers that prevent people from buying them or via software lockouts.)

People do surface mount rework all the time (I think the guy TFA is talking about is the same that inspired me to learn how to do it.)

Not having to throw stuff away because a single component that could otherwise be replaced is a huge gain for the environment (especially people in places that ewaste accumulates) and doesn't have to come at the expense of size reduction.

> “People do surface mount rework all the time”

What percentage of Apple customers are doing surface mount rework, or even hiring other people to do this, in your estimation?

My guess is less than .01%.

And how much could that really be increased if Apple were forced to make their parts accessible and available in the aftermarket? Vs the carbon footprint of the extra manufacturing effort and having to set up distribution channels for these parts?

I just don’t see the sustainability argument. I don’t think any large number of people would suddenly say they want to keep their slow, heat-generating Intel MBPs if they were more repairable. The upgrade cycle will always be the upgrade cycle.

It’s disingenuous to play the “green” card here. I’d be more on the side of the right to repair Apple critics if they would just be honest and say “hey, this is a hobby for us and we want to save money and we just want to be able to do this stuff because it’s fun!”

> My guess is less than .01%.

Because it's prohibitively expensive vs the cost of a new device due to the policies being discussed in this thread.

There was a time I could get a screen replaced in a phone for $40-50. Today, Apple literally bricks the device for swapping out a broken button, even if the part is an authentic Apple component. The trend has been getting progressively worse, and while this thread is mostly about Apple it affects far more industries (Farming being a big example).

> And how much could that really be increased if Apple were forced to make their parts accessible and available in the aftermarket?

I'd reckon a pretty high % of people with cracked screens would happily get them repaired if it were not either ludicrously expensive to do so, or if they felt that they could get it done by 'professionals' instead at some random corner store. These shops can't source parts and schematics "legitimately" and the whole process feels very grey market which drives people away.

I spent 3 months researching how to build a SFF gaming PC and a year after I was done, Apple came out with the M1 Mac Mini which covers 90% my PC's use case (And beats it on many dimensions). PC repair is a dying trade, let's not regulate to keep it alive.

> My guess is less than .01%.

On the one hand we have people arguing for the right to repair so we can increase that number.

And on the other hand there's people who go "meh, the screen is cracked, now I have an excuse to buy new toy, I'll chuck this one in the river since its prohibitively expensive to repair cosmetic defect why the fuck would anyone want it."

You even admit to disagreeing predominantly because you think some of us are being dishonest, and it's probably true that some people want to tinker.

But some people just want to be able to pay a service tech a reasonable fee to fix minor damage or fit a new battery, and have parts and guides etc available.

How many people would actually fix a broken suspension on their car by themselves at home? 0.001%, or whatnot.

Now imagine that you have to scrap your car when suspension breaks, instead of bringing it to a car repair shop and fix it at the 20% of the cost of a new one. Especially if you bought the car just 6 months ago.

But now, if you break the screen protection glass of an iPhone, nobody can legally replace it but Apple, to say nothing if the trickier parts like the battery or the screen.

Vechicles have a lot of propiatiary information in them. We are dumping vechicles because Independant mechanics don't have access to repair information.

I believe only one state, which I can't spell, has a Vechicle Right to Repair law.

I went to automotive school, and have been a part time mechanic. The amount of vechicles going to the scrap yard over relatively minor problems I find disheartening.

I agree with your statement emphatically. I just wanted to add vechicles to the Right to Repair debate.

The Right to Repair Movement is bigger than Apple.

It's all electronics, vechicles, Swiss watch parts (I repair watches, and a few years ago Rolex, and The Swatch Group decided to nix all Independant Watch Repairers Parts Accounts.), appliances, John Deere Tractors, etc.)

I guarantee more people would look to repair their broken devises.

The Right to Repair movement is all encompancing.

My biggest gripe isn't even with electronics, it's these pricy vechicles we are buying with priority repair information.

If we could keep cars on the road longer, and my washing machine spinning a bit longer, we could lesson our Carbon footprint. I do see by repairing our stuff, we would be greener in the long run.

I'm kinda with you on the "green card" strategy a bit, but on a different level.

I noticed California trying to pass Right to Repair bills these last few years. They are using E-waste as the selling point. I would rather they just lay it out for their constituents.

Like these companies do not want anyone working on their products because they make more money by repairing the broken products themselfs (Vertical integration), or force you to buy a newer version of their product when that day comes.

I guess they feel using Green, e-waste, carbon footprint is an easier sell? (I don't feel that is the right direction though.)

I wish they would just be honest, and tell the truth.

You bought the devise (Car, computer, washing machine, tractor, blah, etc), and you should have a reasonable way to repair it when it breaks down.

(California has failed to pass two Right to Repair bills. Let's get vocal with our representatives. Email those loafers. Whenever I think about Right to Repair I picture a small farmer trying to replace a priority sensor on that shiney Deere tractor in the middle of a humid field. Bugs sticking to his perspiring skin. He replaces the sensor, and gets in the cab. The tractor is bricked, and won't do anything. Ouch!)

> My guess is less than .01%

I'd say that your guess is very bad.

> It’s disingenuous to play the “green” card here.

No it is actually disingenuous to act like this is about "tinkering with apple devices". Actually it is hard to express how disingenuous the whole spin of "If people are able to repair products they will become worse, I don't want my product to become worse" truly is.

Especially so when we start talking about devices that actually would be repairable if companies didn't spent some truly petty amount of effort to stop it, using DRM and crippling via detection.

Besides that there is a market for refurbished iPhones, actually there are shops that specialize in selling nothing besides them, and the ones buying from it are hardly the evil hacker/tinker people you describe, that want to take away your shiny apple elegance by forcing different product designs...

> I don’t think any large number of people would suddenly say they want to keep their slow, heat-generating Intel MBPs if they were more repairable.

What about the concept of a device being sold used instead of sitting in a box until it gets thrown into the trash? The whole "people just want the new and shiny anyway" is a very priviliged way of thinking. Being able to repair something is more than you keeping your device and repairing it yourself, it also means that suddenly a device still has use instead of contributing to the pollution just because some company rather wants to see you burn that thing in your backyard than seeing it get any use in the hands of someone else.

Besides that: There is more technology than Apple, not everybody has to care what the Apple fan bubble thinks. Apple (and the people that defend this mess when it comes to repairability) just reaches critical levels of hypocrisy when it comes to the "we are doing good for the environment" advertisement.

> My guess is less than .01%

In the beginning it is theorized that humans were a hunter gatherer species. We dedicated 100% of our time to collecting food. At some point we learned about farming and cultivating livestock. People could now generate more food then they would need. This enabled something magical: one person could generate the food required for a group of people and that group of people could do other things! This formation of a group and their social dynamics are sometimes called a "society". Soon people figured out you could do the same thing we did with food production with other things: building things, making cloths, cooking, etc.

I think, even if .01% of Apple customers worked in the repair industry you'd see this same exact effect!

For example: 1 Louis Rossman can fix ~10 MacBooks/day or 3650/year.

There's about 5 Billion internet users and 20% of them are Mac users.

.01% of Mac users would be ~100k globally. That means, if everyone of these people became interested in repair as a profession were as fast as Rossman we could fix all 1 billion Apple user's devices within 3 years. This is about the rate people buy and throw out an Apple product due to some breakage. This would essentially keep the market full of low cost devices for people who couldn't normally afford a Mac.

Also, fun fact, it's estimated there's only about 50k neurosurgeons world wide: https://thejns.org/view/journals/j-neurosurg/130/4/article-p....

So we have an estimated 2x MacBook repair people to brain repair people.

(Obviously this isn't concrete numbers but essentially even if only 40 people world wide want to repair devices it makes sense to let them)

Your Mac user numbers are off by a factor of 10X.

The vast majority of those 5 billion internet users are exclusively accessing the internet through smartphones (cheap android ones), and do not even own a desktop PC/laptop. Android and iOS account for most internet traffic. Android alone is 40% of all internet users. [1]

If the 0.01% number I threw out is correct, then that's not 100,000 Mac users. That would mean there's over a billion people with Macbooks, which is off by a factor of 10. Apple only sells 20 million of them a year. 0.01% would mean more like 5-10,000.

There's not enough demand for MacBook repair for Rossman-types to make a living setting up repair shops anywhere outside of NYC/SF.

And again, this would have no affect on the upgrade cycle. Most people do not throw away their computers because they are broken, they throw them away because they are old tech.

I too am nostalgic for the days of building PC towers for my family, however, when I think about it, all of those towers I built ended up in a landfill.

They were all super easy to repair and upgrade, and yet, nobody did.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_syste...

>There's not enough demand for MacBook repair for Rossman-types to make a living setting up repair shops anywhere outside of NYC/SF and MAYBE Seattle.

That's an odd thing to say considering the I've seen half a dozen of those kinds of repair shops in the small city near my home town (I never went out of my way to find them.)

The grocery store near where I live now has one inside it. If someone's backlight/screen/camera suddenly stopped working and they could either pay $100 to fix it or $1000 they're probably going to pick the cheaper option. There absolutely is demand for it. Even if there wasn't taking away people's options for no good reason is kind of terrible anyway.

I wasn't doing it until I had to replace the backlight chip (in a computer where there was already at least one module on the mother board, so there absolutely was room to put the backlight circuit on a module but I think Apple keeps it on the motherboard to save money which means lots of dead macs.)

Also you only need 0.1%. The computer I worked on wasn't mine.

>>What percentage of Apple customers are doing surface mount rework, or even hiring other people to do this, in your estimation? My guess is less than .01%.

This is a terrible argument. Apple has Teams of lawyers, and engineers doing to best to make sure board level repair is technically and legally unfeasible as possible, and in your circular logic their success is prohibiting repair is justification for continued or increased anti-repair actions

Wow...

The better question is "How man Apple Customers would like to have the option of repair vs replace"

I bet that number is far higher than 0.01%

>Apple were forced to make their parts accessible and available in the aftermarket?Vs the carbon footprint of the extra manufacturing effort and having to set up distribution channels for these parts?

This is not accurate. Apple doesn't make the parts. Apple doesn't "set up distribution channels" for parts. These already exist. Apple buys it on the market. What Apple then does is force the parts suppliers to only sell to them via exclusivity arrangements. We would like for repair shops to also purchase be able to purchase these parts so they can extend the life-time of these devices.

>I just don’t see the sustainability argument. I don’t think any large number of people would suddenly say they want to keep their slow, heat-generating Intel MBPs if they were more repairable. The upgrade cycle will always be the upgrade cycle.

Phones, like other consumer electronics get dropped, bumped, damaged. This can happen in the first week of ownership, in the second week, or at anytime after that. The idea that you should just scrap it and buy the next model is ridiculous.

https://www.repair.org/the-environment

https://www.fastcompany.com/40561811/greenpeace-to-apple-for...

>I’d be more on the side of the right to repair Apple critics if they would just be honest and say “hey, this is a hobby for us and we want to save money and we just want to be able to do this stuff because it’s fun!”

This is nowhere even close to what most people are talking about in this thread. I hate to have to say it, but you really seem to be arguing in bad-faith here.

> My guess is less than .01%.

That do it themselves.

There's quite clearly a market for other people to do it as a service, and I'd bet you that percentage is pretty much everyone who doesn't buy a new laptop when they see the edge of their AppleCare plan, which may be on the order of half the market.

>We're not asking for modular connectors (although those are nice) or larger competents.

You might not, but OP did: "Why can't Apple make their products easily repairable while making them aesthetically pleasing?"

That's not incompatible with what I said.

What display technology will be used in 10–20 years? LCDs & OLEDs may be obviated by then, but panels of some sort will still be a must.

idk what you are on about, you wanna defend throwing away a whole laptop when the battery's dead or the LCD is broken? You don't think "right to repair" is all about replacing IC's on a PCB, right? There are a ton of vital components in a modern laptop that would easily be replacable by either a dedicated layman or an unlicenced professional. E.g. the webcam, SSD, battery, cables between these and the MB, the LCD, keyboard, touchpad, power button, speakers, screen bezel, digitizer, daughterboards, lid sensor, the list goes on and on and on.

And remember that "right to repair" does not only entail end users, but also local repair shops and IT service companies who simply are not licensed with a specific brand.

What do you think reduces the carbon footprint of a company more:

A) Company consolidates hardware into a single unrepairable resin block

B) All customers are able to use their devices 50% longer because stuff is repairable

As someone who designes PCBs you could save the world by doing the math here for me and convince me how this is better for the planet than e.g. my fairphone where I can swap out my battery when it is broken instead of throwing the whole assembly away or trying to source parts and removing a glued in battery.

Replacing some component in a computer/phone is something every member of my extended family did within the last 3 years. Usually it was a screen, a battery, a home button, a headphone jack, a hard drive, ... Every instance where they did this they used a piece of electronics longer and thus reduced the carbon footprint more than any single engineering change Apple could have come up with.

Clearly A is better. Because those resin blocks will be made smaller and smaller in the next decade or so to the point that arguments like "Landfills!" become irrelevant.

B isn't even a possibility. It's a fundamental misunderstanding of the technology upgrade/purchase cycle, and of consumer behavior in general.

Most people don't throw away their computers because they "break and can't be repaired." They throw them away because newer hardware is more powerful and smaller and uses less energy.

When I went home last year my parents had 4 old PC towers of various generations sitting in their basement, they recently took them all to the local dump. All of them were still completely functional. Literally nothing was broken.

Why did they throw them away? Because they were 1/10th the processing power of a modern MacBook and impossible to move around the house. Nobody was using them.

There's mountains of giant plastic PC towers sitting in landfills that were built with the easy to repair/upgrade mindset everybody here is so nostalgic about. It did nothing to save the environment.

I mean before you call it hypocritical you need to take a holistic view of the supply chain. Electronics manufacturing is incredibly wasteful, even if you're making something that can be repaired!

Apple is at least working towards more sustainable technologies than traditional manufacturing. Photolithography is fucking awful for the planet and yet foundational to many devices, just for example.

Some devices like the Magic Mouse become paperweights after the battery fails and cannot be repaired at all.

I think one part of the problem is all of the encouragement and virtue signaling around recycling. A friend told me “Apple is the best tech company for the environment because they recycle more than any others”.

Reduce > Reuse > Recycle

The fact that Apple peripherals are not user repairable is an absolute environmental disaster.

I used to work as a civil service engineer for the Navy in technology development for future weapons. The brass would often complain about how expensive fully-integrated solutions were. We investigated and found that the main cause was vendor lock-in to buy the all up rounds. We couldn’t compete for lowest cost on the power cards, or signal processing cards, rocket motors, etc., because the government didn’t have data rights to the design in order to hold down development costs. (Side note: as a contracting necessity, we’d also put the whole purchase on one huge contract to be managed by the so-called prime contractor and negotiate a profit fee explicitly in the contract itself. The total cost of the prime contract included “pass through” funding for subcontracts that the prime contractor would handle. In some cases the prime would let a subcontract to a vendor who would contract _back_ to a subsidiary of the prime, and we’d pay guaranteed profit margin explicitly on the prime and the subcontract amounts, so we’d pay a profit markup to the prime on the profit they would make from their subsidiary. And folks around here gripe about the 30% app “tax”.)

Anyway, vendor lock-in means we can’t compete subcomponents and our long term maintenance costs are really high because we always have to go back to the vendor for service. (Sounding familiar…?) The brass started dreaming up “modular weapons systems” where we maybe develop things like universal power modules, guidance modules, and other components, then we could compete for low cost production and long-term maintenance and achieve utopia.

I spent quite a while on this, and what we found is that it wouldn’t work (at least not for weapons). Universal components aren’t well-suited to different platforms (3” rocket vs 14” missile, etc.), the modular design adds weight, reduces efficiency for the electronics systems, increases part count to make them all interoperable, and so on. The engineering trades that you have to make for modular designs are incompatible with optimizing performance as measured by the end user. Ironically perhaps, one of the major case studies that helped argue that point was based around Apple products.

Which is perhaps a long way to say that most consumers don’t seem to care about modular computers, and in the worst case many of the changes that modularity would require are counterproductive to the things consumers _do_ seem to care about.

It’s one thing to argue that we should use governmental regulation to push negative externalities back onto firms so that they reconsider the design and engineering constraints they prioritize, but it’s not like firms are being irrational or irresponsible by giving people what they want—some combination of smaller, lighter, faster, longer battery life, and cheaper devices. There would be some negative impact on some (or all) of those characteristics if Apple, Samsung, or anyone else switched to fully modular designs—and I think most consumers would choose the cheaper, faster, smaller, lighter, or longer battery life models than to buy a modular one either on principle or because they expect to repair or upgrade it for significantly longer than they expect to own them today.

That might apply to very complex, high reliability systems like those in the military. But a battery is very basic and it's a consumable more than a modularize-able component like an engine or turbo. I think batteries are easily replaceable in most military equipment.

Consumables in the very least should be replaceable for consumer products, or the price for its replacement capped, otherwise we're throwing away electronics that hasn't reached even a third of its lifetime just because the battery's lifetime is over, it's like buying a new car everytime the tires are worn out. It's an incredible waste of resources.

Same thing for connectors like USB, audio jack, buttons and joysticks.

Most egregious is the chip signature-checking and exclusive buyer rights on same chip, that should be outlawed, heavily fined and easily reported and checked. It's like adding a chip with a serial number for each tire and if you install one not from your car manufacturer then your car refuses to move. It's just a scam.

I think batteries are easily replaceable in most military equipment.

The irony is that a lot of military equipment is designed to destroy and be destroyed, yet is probably designed with serviceability in mind more than consumer electronics.

> I think batteries are easily replaceable in most military equipment.

The _actual_ irony here is that batteries are often not easily replaceable in lots of military equipment, and especially not always in weapons. It may require a very extensive tear down and replacement of entire sub assemblies to replace something as mundane as a coin cell battery. And don’t even start with thermal batteries…

Interesting.

The Israeli Iron Dome project did it differently. From the references in the Wikipedia article I found this gem:

"As scientists we dream to sit in our offices without limitations of time and budget and to develop perfect products. But the reality is different, and these constraints forced us to think hard. There are parts in the system forty times cheaper than the parts we buy normally. I can give you even a scoop—it contains the world's only missile components from Toys R Us... One day I brought to work my sons toy car. We Passed it among us, and we saw that there were actually components suitable for us. More than that I can not tell.".

It’s very common to use commercial off the shelf (COTS) components in military gear. It’s actually preferable to use COTS than building something new. That doesn’t necessarily make the overall end item modular or serviceable by anyone except the OEM.

A decade ago the Air Force had a supercomputer made up of 1,760 Sony PlayStation 3s. They claimed using PS3s saved them $2 million.

https://phys.org/news/2010-12-air-playstation-3s-supercomput...

They also have been experimenting with using video game controllers to control military equipment

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/military-contracto...

Wasn't the Aegis system designed with this very kind of modularity, though at a higher level? Want different missiles on your ship, no need to build a different ship: just lift the module out and put a new one in.

> because the government didn’t have data rights to the design in order to hold down development costs

Isn't this the very problem? These kinds of contracts should be illegal, not just in the military, but across the whole public sector. Not getting full designs along with a custom product makes the public agency dependent on a commercial vendor. Might as well put a neon sign above should provision that says "a loophole for defrauding the public".

Yes. They should have data rights. It very quickly becomes false economy.

On a similar topic, a lot of LRUs (Line Replaceable Unit) in aircraft such as the F-35, the front-line maintainers, or even squadron/wing level avionics shops, can't even do basic diagnostics on the LRU. They either have to get a manufacturer tech representative to do it, or send the box back to the manufacture for repair. They are routinely returned "No fault found" with a significant cost attached.

For the military, right to repair is one of those areas where I think there is an especially good use case.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/20/opinion/military-right-to...

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/even-the-american-military... is a later article that references back to the NYT opinion piece.

If they want to sell thin and light appliances ok.

But give me the choice to buy a repairable long term platform and I’ll stay invested in the ecosystem and pay a premium for thicker repairable MBP

Reply on news.ycombinator.com