EU Right to repair: Making repair easier and more appealing to consumers | Hacker News Reader

EU Right to repair: Making repair easier and more appealing to consumers

europarl.europa.eu

43 pointsjanpot20 comments

> Manufacturers will have to provide spare parts and tools at a reasonable price and will be prohibited from using contractual clauses, hardware or software techniques that obstruct repairs. In particular, they cannot impede the use of second-hand or 3D-printed spare parts by independent repairers, nor can they refuse to repair a product solely for economic reasons or because it was previously repaired by someone else.

That's wonderful !

> nor can they refuse to repair a product solely for economic reasons

I do wonder how that's going to work out in practice. Especially with today's highly integrated electronics, there's a lot of stuff which is technically not impossible to repair, but in practice not viable due to the level of skills required and the hours it'd take to do.

Will companies be forced to spend $10.000 to repair a $25 gadget? Is a full refund or a replacement product still an option? If there's a lab anywhere on Earth which is able to do it, does refusing to hire them count as "economic reasons"?

> or because it was previously repaired by someone else

Similarly, I wonder how this works out. What if the previous repair was a complete bodge job which did more harm than good? Are they expected to clean up someone else's mess?

These rules probably make sense if you only repair by replacing off-the-shelf sub-assemblies, but that's not the kind of repair which matters these days. If it's possible to skirt the rules by refusing board-level repairs, what's stopping companies from intentionally creating completely monolithic designs?

It might force companies to take repairability into account.

>solely [...] because it was previously repaired by someone else

If the previous techician repaired your monitor with chainsaws and seawater then they can refuse to repair it as it is not solely because you went to a third party techician.

So, someone can use bogus parts to effect a repair and the manufacturer is still on the hook to fix the thing?

Canada's budget which just released, said that they plan to do similar legislation in the summer. I do hope they follow through as described.

I think its a great move forward. There were some significant differences. Europe is going down the obligated cost-effective repairs. Inevitably europe will be under constant problems of 'cost-effective' definitions. Not to mention extended warranties. Per country as well makes that a huge mess.

Whereas Canada seems to be going down the road that you're moreso allowed to repair your own. You similarly get access to parts and tools, but no obligation from the manufacturer.

Canada's big one is that copyrights may be violated for any repairs. Canada becomes the pirate/crack capital of the world after this. I love it!

One should take EU's press releases about their legislation with a grain of salt. They are essentially ads (which I find a bit out of place for legislative bodies).

Right to repair activists are a bit less enthusiastic: "Considering the limited scope and ambition, we feel that the opportunity was missed to make this initiative into something that would actually merit the title ‘Right to repair directive’. As things stand, this piece of regulation could be more aptly described as an ‘annex to the existing ecodesign regulations.’ In essence, its main effect will be to somewhat increase the chances that the small number of products that already had to be repairable by law anyway, will actually end up being repaired."

https://repair.eu/news/analysis-of-the-adopted-directive-on-...

Right to repair is great, but it doesn't solve the problem that things are manufactured to break.

What I always want is a guaranteed minimum product life that isn't absolute shit.

"Sure your $2000 refrigerator died after a year, but now you can pay more to make it work again" is a garbage bargain.

In germany and maybe the entire EU there is a one year mandatory time where the manufacturer has to replace/fix the item and after the replace/fix event there is another 2 months on top.

sounds like an incentive to make sure things only fail after 14 months, then

I thought it was 2 years warranty across Europe now?

Yes it's 2 years (if you are buying it as the consumer)

[1]: https://www.eccnet.eu/consumer-rights/what-are-my-consumer-r...

Thank you for the clarification

Maybe make it into category's where more money equals more guaranteed work time unless specifically excempt due to the nature of the product, but most electronics should be able to work one year at the very least.

In that case you will probably approve of the expanded Ecodesign rules from last year:

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20230612IP...

>but it doesn't solve the problem that things are manufactured to break.

No. That isn't the problem. You do want to have things which are engineered for a specific life time. The alternative is things which aren't engineered for a specific life time and might break any time, even extremely early. You either define how long your product should last or you don't, the former is vastly preferable.

Repairability solves the problem of the minimum life time of a product being determined by a single component.

>"Sure your $2000 refrigerator died after a year, but now you can pay to make it work again" is a garbage bargain.

It depends. If the cost of replacing parts is cheaper than a product which by itself would last the same time it is a good bargain.

In almost any product you have components which are hard to make in such a way that the product lasts over a long time. Some things will naturally wear out and, if no replacement parts are available, make the whole product obsolete.

Unfortunately repairability doesn't solve it. Even when it can be repaired, the repair can easily cost more than the product is worth. If anything I expect them to cheap out on parts, because they can now bring it as an "affordable" replacement for a "wear part" rather than just putting in the right part at manufacturing.

We're already seeing this with "repair kits": to replace that $0.50 thing that broke, you have to put in a new $100 sub-assembly. USB connector broken? Guess you're getting a new logic board! Battery worn? Sorry, gotta buy a new screen too.

The entire product should be engineered to last roughly the same amount of time, with no artificial wear items. But that's simply not what we're seeing these days.

Repairability and longevity go together, since the easier it is to repair the cheaper it is to offer long warranties.

Already part of the law in the EU. There's a minimum warranty of 2 years, and in some countries there is an additional "reasonable expectation" period. That $2000 fridge is expected to last 10 to 20 years, so if it breaks down after 5 years of normal use it's a manufacturing issue and they'll have to fix it.

The minimum warranty for all products sold in the EU is two years. Beyond that, it depends on the country and the type of product. For example, in NL consumer warranty claims are based on "reasonable lifetime" expections of the product, based on guidelines from the manufacturing sector [0]. For your €2000 refrigerator you could reasonably claim warranty for 8 years after purchase.

[0] https://www.technieknederland.nl/stream/richtlijnenafschrijv... (PDF)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com