Hacker News Reader

Comment by rkhassen9 | Hacker News Reader

But is a compelling reason to have solid right to repair laws.

One could imagine a solid industry of 3rd party parts providers if devices are built under a right to repair framework

Once again, that thing falls under FDA regulations. You’re telling us about a world with 3rd party mix and match components, all FDA approved in any and all combinations on 5 year plus old devices?

> under FDA regulations.

That's just (!) under current FDA regulations though yeah?

It's not like they're forever unchangeable.

I'm supportive of the right to repair in every sense, but even the strongest right to repair laws would not have helped improve the outcome in this case.

The strongest right to repair law would probably require detailed schematics, BOMs, and (sufficiently detailed) manufacturing steps being available for all the parts.

That would enable people to organise getting replacements manufactured themselves. :)

Is there any evidence that was the bottleneck?

Bit early to be looking for bottlenecks... ;)

Honestly, this world be great lol. The cost and complexity of manufacturing would maintain a moat for the companies.

At the very least, they could license the schematic to customers.

I love that future, but that's not right to repair. It's simply not what that means. You can want open source manufacturing, and you can want that legally mandated, but not having manufacturing steps doesn't take away your right to repair something you own.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com