Sounds cliche but people are the conduit for change.
Even if you only write your politicians you did something.
Even if you only call your politicians you did something.
Even if you walk door to door with a petition and get signatures you did something.
Even if you organize a PAC to support candidates you believe will treat this seriously you did something.
Even if you start a trade association to get manufactures to commit to supporting these policies with their own dollars then you did something.
All of this might seem like too little or too unrealistic but it’s something.
Campaign finance reform and moving away from the plurality vote. How do you do that? I don't know, but these two things are required to repair the U.S. to a functioning democracy.
This is a huge question, that applies far outside the boundaries of this particular issue. Think security, privacy, ... hell, even our entire democracy.
I guess one of the problems is that people who do care actually work against it. E.g. Apple developers doing what they are told, instead of what they think is best.
This is literally not what right to repair is about. This is exactly what anti-right to repair lobbyists are saying. Right to repair does prevent warranties, nor does it require a change in how you make a product. It simply allows a person to repair their very thin phone if they know how to do so, or hire someone who does and is not "authorized" (but is a professional, and is capable) to perform the repair.
> I don't want companies to be forced to sell components that they don't want to sell.
This is about preventing companies from preventing other companies from selling parts on the open market. If you don't want to sell parts, fine. If your suppliers do, you should not be able to prevent that for the purpose of making repair impossible.
TFA says it: "when the battery failed, it took another seven hours to replace that. Both the screen and battery had been glued into the computer, requiring surgery-like precision to replace them without breaking something else." - in other words, instead of gluing components, screw them. That makes hardware thicker.
>This is about preventing companies from preventing other companies from selling parts on the open market.
This is not a problem in practical terms. If you go on aliexpress you will see that you can find any single component inside of an iphone. But they are knockoffs and they suck. They want to force Apple to sell parts even if they don't want to, and I am against that. (This is just an example: I think Apple is selling parts now.)
> This is not a problem in practical terms.
This is a problem when I cannot buy a standard (not custom) power amplifier chip because a manufacturer deal prevents the manufacturer of the power amp from selling to retail distributors. This is why I have to buy cheap knock-off parts most of the time. The original part would cost $7 and the cheap knock off is $3. The labor - $200. Why take the risk of having to fix it again because of the cheap part?
Every argument against right to repair requires you suspend common sense and buy into some scenario where reality doesn't apply. It's absurd that people are forced to replace $1000 phones over $7 parts, and even more absurd that a farmer has the same problem with his $1 Million combine over similar component level repair issues.
Apple sells some parts now, and the prices make new devices attractive.
What's wrong with manufacturers being forced to sell parts?
IMO, once once a manufacturer is selling more than small batches, then yes, they should be forced to provide parts and manuals for things you get money for. That was once considered normal, is still legally required in many industries (though enforcement tends to be scarce), and should be required and followed in pretty much any industry. What is the downside except manufacturer's convenience (and profits from generating garbage)? IMO it's a net-win for society.
Would you abolish those laws as well? Note that most manufacturer wouldn't do those things voluntarily, or rather, unless forced, they couldn't even if they wanted to, because they wouldn't be competitive.
Yes, some consumers are knowledgeable, have the time to choose wisely and funds to pay more upfront, but it's not realistic to expect consumers to do extensive research on each item they buy. In such a market, a good manufacturer is relegated to be much more costly, because they don't have economies of scale, hurting both good manufacturers, all consumers and the environment.
There are no alternatives on the market, so this is not an option.
This is a problem born of over-regulation, where we've slowly allowed regulation (especially copyright) to chip away at Mangnus-Moss (which was passed in the 1970s to make sure you could fix your own dishwasher or car), which made it clear that people were allowed to work on the equipment they owned.
Even if congressmen are not trading on inside info and getting rich, if you have a 401k you are gonna get dinged in net worth by this kind of regulation. On AAPL especially.
As well, there is an angle about the fiscal health or the middle class as well. Depending on how much you think the average congressperson feels about them.
However, I stipulate people will still buy and gov't will repurpose the money raised from taxes to do other things.