New EU-wide product repair rules come into force
rte.ie
rte.ie
The source of this number seems to come from here, on page 73:
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELE...
Interestingly, the number is over a span of 15 years, and is only the calculated "Growth and investment".
Other numbers are "Savings in production costs" at €15.6 billion, and "Consumer savings" at 25€ per consumer per year for an impressive total of €176.5 billion.
It also lists "Business adjustment costs" at €8.1 billion, "Business administrative costs" at just €69.8 million and "Implementation and enforcement" at €105.5 million.
I wonder why "Growth and investment" was chosed as the number to use. Maybe to keep emphasising their gist of "the EU is the future for sustainable growth"?
Also, here are the announcements by the Commission:
https://commission.europa.eu/news-and-media/news/right-repai...
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/right-to-repair-...
If I buy an Android phone, I should be able to maintain/update the operating system.
If I buy a MacBook, I should be able to maintain or change the operating system.
If I buy a TV, smart watch, microwave - I should be able to maintain their software.
The only thing prohibiting this is the fact that drivers are obfuscated and/or hardware schematics sufficient to produce drivers are not provided.
IMO, if the EU wants any technical sovereignty, they'd address this as I don't see European companies producing a competitor to the MacBook - I do however see European companies being capable of creating a competing operating system (or Linux) to install on a MacBook, but only if Apple is compelled to allow them.
The same goes for smartphones, cars, and any digital device
For example, there is literally no laptop on Earth as nice as the MacBook Pro. Extremely long battery life, insane CPU & GPU performance, unmatched trackpad - but it runs MacOS. Unless you're a professional video editor, the laptop is largely relegated to being a thin client for a Linux machine you SSH into (or spawn a non hardware accelerated VM and demolish performance / power).
How long would it take Apple to develop Linux drivers (even as binary blobs like nvidia)? Probably a couple of weekends. Why don't they? Because walled garden.
The MacBook is lucky in that it's a high profile device so we see projects like Asahi working at it - but again, without good documentation and despite the incredible progress, the Asahi team have spent years and created an alternative for older Apple hardware that still isn't daily drivable (not throwing shade at the project, it's incredible and I am dying to use Linux on my MacBook).
But what about devices with less enthusiastic communities? Pixel 8? Samsung TV? Asus Router? Fitbit Air? D-Link portable 5g modem? My smart blinds?
These devices have no drivers, locked bootloaders, and no community to spend years reverse engineering hardware (that will be obsolete by the time OSS drivers are developed).
I want to see my high end consumer hardware running OSS and until regulators step in to force the "right to repair software" - I don't see that happening and it breaks my heart.
In the real world you'll always only ever see the duopoly of Android / iOS for phones for example. This can be government apps, parking apps, apps for your utilities etc. so it's not like there's an easy choice to opt-out of that. It's not much different for laptops (Will still have some non-free blob in them for some driver), TVs, kitchen appliances.
There is no escape from duopoly if you need banks for 24/7 - get rid of that need now or the slippery slope of the technofeudalist slavery will suck you all even deeper into never wanted outcomes.
You'd probably also get things like TVs with very basic software at import, with much better software available for people willing to obtain it outside the EU.
Imagine if someone developed a Linux based mobile OS that could run on it.
Imagine if someone figured out that the USB-C port could do displayport out.
Then imagine plugging that Linux iPhone into a usbc dock or lapdock (laptop with only a screen, keyboard and usbc input) and having a Linux desktop pop up.
The MacBook Neo already proved that iPhone hardware is fast enough for general purpose desktop computing - why aren't we allowed to do that?
Oh right, because the bootloader is locked and (practically) no one outside of Apple can produce hardware drivers without documentation.
It isn't a lack of skill or lack of demand - it's hardware gatekeeping by vendors.
Apple, for instance, does not provide low level device documentation sufficient for creating open source drivers - for instance - publishing documentation on the Apple GPU and coprocessor would have reduced the development effort of the Asahi GPU driver by 90%.
If Apple was compelled to release low level documentation for their Apple Silicon hardware (audio, usb, gpu, power management, etc) - Linux would have been running on Apple hardware long ago.
What I know off the top of my head, from reading the legislation a while ago. Is that technical reasons, such as waterproof devices, will still be able to retain non user replaceable batteries if it is needed to keep the device waterproof.
Vs how much you pay for it.
Unfortunately regulations often don't go far enough.
I have a ~10 year old iPad Pro in perfect working condition. I can basically do nothing with it, and increasingly it can no longer even browse the internet because Safari is so outdated on it.
So it will be waste.
See similar story about Amazon bricking old Kindles: https://www.techradar.com/tablets/ereaders/amazon-bricking-c...
But, this regulation is still a tiny step in the right direction.
You could make the argument that manufacturers only need to provide the means for the community to support the device, rather than extensive documentation. However, these communities are often so small that this would never be a priority for most companies. Combined with the IP-related issues, I don't think this is really feasible.
You can just stop to the last reason, they don't want to give up ownership back to you.
They would prefer you to throw the device in the bin and buy a new one, preferably from them again.
No, it's simply that your demand is completely unreasonable. You are essentially asking them to adopt an open-source model. That can mean giving up control over its intellectual property and potentially exposing proprietary technology to competitors, especially when some products are valuable precisely because of the software that runs on them.
Edit:
I don't know why it is not allowing me to reply to you.
> No, I'm asking these devices to work like normal computers
What exactly is a "normal computer," and what specific behavior are you expecting?
Can you freely tinker with your motherboard's firmware? Can you modify the Bluetooth or Wi-Fi firmware on your motherboard? Can you modify and independently update the internals of Windows itself? These are all examples of components that are proprietary and subject to limitations, even on what we would consider a "normal computer."
There may be some exceptions to the above, but the same generally applies to mass-produced, commercially distributed devices. They are often locked down for technical, legal, and security reasons, and "unlocking" them is simply not a reasonable expectation in many cases.
Also I doubt that there's anything left on 2015 era hardware that will grant you an edge on current age competitors
To give a reply:
> Can you freely tinker with your motherboard's firmware? Can you modify the Bluetooth or Wi-Fi firmware on your motherboard? Can you modify and independently update the internals of Windows itself? These are all examples of components that are proprietary and subject to limitations, even on what we would consider a "normal computer."
Yes I expect do be able to do all of those things if I want to, it's my computer and I should be free to do whatever I want on it. Including modifying firmware, modifying the OS and modifying anything else you can think of.
Do I want to do all of these? Probably not but the freedom for me to do it should be there if I change my mind. And no, it's a reasonable expectation.
There's a 10 minute timer on HN to avoid discussions becoming too heated (at least AFAIK that's the reason).
> You are essentially asking them to adopt an open-source model. That can mean giving up control over its intellectual property and potentially exposing proprietary technology to competitors, especially when some products are valuable precisely because of the software that runs on them.
...and nothing wrong with that. The right-to-repair is mainly aimed at discontinued products anyway, at that point the "IP" is so old it doesn't require protection (and to be honest, the whole concept of long term "intellectual property" is bullshit anyway, just as long-term "copyright" - about 3 to 5 years is a reasonable time frame for 'exploiting' a novel idea, after that it should be free for all - at that time your competitors will have figured it out anyway).
In the 80s it was entirely normal to get parts lists, schematics and ROM listings when buying a computer for instance (and I guess other electronic devices too), there is absolutely no reason why access to the same information should be restricted today.
E.g.: "for example, you may not be allowed to provide access to the radio firmware." Given that everything has a radio these days (everything is wifi- and/or bluetooth- enabled), this is just stupid. Why is firmware for basically essential infra not legally available?
Same goes for many, many, many other things.
By not doing it you are basically outsourcing this cost to the environment.
Btw, it's difficult to believe the post is a good faith argument.
It's not. It's something they have to stop doing. Stop adding code that specifically stops third party software from running.
They don't have to. Open up the platform for linux and custom OS.
Imagine the cool things people could do with old iPads. Put Android or Ubuntu Touch and give it to people who cannot afford a tablet. Wall display for Home Assistant. Rip out the batteries and have a very low energy ARM server, etc.
The main problem is that people maintaining the OS build for your hardware is the same people making the hardware. If legislation forced to divest both into separate companies the support would last far, far longer.
But I guess there is no money to be made on that software...otherwise we would already see a bunch of non-manufacturer companies offering software for 3rd party devices that are unlocked, wouldn't we?
Or maybe the used hardware is just not documented well enough
<sigh> If only that were true. I have a Samsung S20 with 128gb storage and a adequate battery that is ewaste because of the locked bootloader and now permanently vulnerable kernel.
Not disagreeing with your premise (the same should be done with ISPs — own the connection or the wires, but not both). I'd just take the "hard" install with fewer features over what we have now.
Eh, what are you proposing? That these new regulations should cover +10 year old devices too?
Similarly I still have an iPhone with a lightning port instead of the legally mandated USB-C port, but at no point was I expecting Apple to somehow change the ports of existing devices.
So for next decade, older devices might often have more memory!
I'd say that we need regulation requiring user-replacable software. Even though a PC might not be supported by Windows 11, and subsequently major browsers will cease support. You can still install a 3rd-party OS like Linux which will maintain support far beyond the original EoL.
Same goes for Android devices, I used to have an LG G2 (the phone, not the TV), which IIRC shipped with Android 4 or 5, and through LineageOS I updated it all the way to Android 11. Granted it couldn't remain relevant forever, its 32-bit ARM architecture is quite outdated and a lot of apps lost support for it, but for a while it remained quite useful.
Might help you get some more use out of it, thanks to the DMA :-)
Like just a few years ago it became impossible to run 32bit windows which effectively killed all OS software updates for hardware older than ~2005. Most application software followed.
On the Linux they just dropped support for the 486 and older versions of the kernel will likely still get security updates for a while.
The 10 year old iPad is still a perfectly capable device, but it suffers from the lack of an updated operating system and enough storage to apply a would be update. There are millions of people for whom an iPad is all the computing they'd ever need (many just use their phone as well), but the larger screen makes it a good option of online shopping, banking, emails, government documents, calendar and appointment booking. The price is reasonable, but it doesn't need to replace every three to five years to serve that purpose. Arguably I don't know how Apple would make money on it long term, but the lack of update should count against them in terms of their environmental image.
Apple is far from the worst, their phones updates for a long time, longer than most. Their laptops equally so. The iPad is very disappointing, because even if they issue an OS update, not all the devices can apply it, because of the lack of storage. Still better than my wife's old Samsung phone that was unable to apply any operating system update ever, because the storage was to limited.
However, any Kindle books they have already downloaded to that Kindle will continue to work, and can be backed up and restored to a desktop computer over USB.
Also any Kindle books they bought for that Kindle when Amazon allowed downloading to desktop for later USB loading can still be loaded that way.
Finally, it still works for non-DRM books from other sources. It is essentially now like a non-Kindle ebook reader that also happens to be able to read the set of Kindle books you already have.
Oh, and you also have to avoid doing a factory reset or deregistering the Kindle. It will then lose the ability to read Kindle books, making it even more like a non-Kindle ebook reader.
You might not be totally screwed out of your Kindle books even then. We are talking about devices that were introduced in 2012 or earlier and last sold new in September 2014.
Amazon only succeeded in hardening their DRM to the point that DRM removal tools don't work for most people in the last couple of years or so. That means there is a good chance that the Kindle books of most of the affected users have reasonably breakable DRM.
There are some things that might have happened since they bought the books that updated the DRM on their copies, but if you just downloaded the books, and only later moved them off and on via USB (manually or with something like Calibre) to manage space on the device, and did not also read them in the Amazon desktop Kindle app then they are almost certainly still using the original DRM and that can easily be stripped.
Repair cafes are nice hobby projects for pensionados but it is not going to move the needle.
Helsinki (for one) needs some real repair cafés.
reduce, reuse, recycle> Manufacturers must also provide [...] access to spare parts at a reasonable price.
This is the important part. Stupid shit like 0.3€ soldering buttons to 200€ motherboards so the repair is expensive has got to go.
Hopefully data collection that supports device-specific repair cost breakdowns and tracking is part of this legislation.
Currently, manufacturers optimize for manufacturing -- it's cheaper to assemble with a $200 all-in-one board than a discrete button.
If it were more expensive to use an all-in-one board (say, because they were on the hook for repairs and/or buyers had a place to easily compare repair costs...) then they'd do otherwise.
Price/cost obfuscation is the root of a lot of inefficiencies.
I won't call soldering anything on a 20-layers pcb "stupid shit".
Nevertheless, the point is not the electronic toothbrush, but rather the "BIG" stuff that costs much and it's creating a lot of garbage.
A 1200 euro TV that breaks after 5 years - are you willing to buy a new one just because?
Once you have that infrastructure in place, eventually also the "smaller" things will be cheaper to replace.
I've played with entrepreneurship most of my life - I know how "a solution looking for a problem" looks like. Any VC would laugh them out of the room.
Edit: don't get me wrong - there is a part of this that is almost free and only requires a bit of enforcement. That part is good, and it's exactly what governments should deal with. But anything that imposes direct or indirect costs should go through serious cost/benefit analysis.
Things that are on the not hard scale to fix - cleaning robots, inkjet printers (with fill-in ink), laptops (incl. board repairs as long as they are not a BGA), desktop pc, mowing robots, mowers (all 2 and 4 stroke variants), most battery tools (drills, sanders, saws, etc.). Overall stuff that can opened reliably, even if that requires specialized tools like bearing pullers or impact wrenches.
Things that are hard - anything that uses glue as the prime assembly fastening choice, e.g. TVs and monitors (or just plastic clips). Cheap plastics (ABS) bodies are annoying as well. Fridges, no way to refill or fix the compressor. Serialized components that need specialized tools/software after being replaced.
In that regard that would be my complaint - ease of disassembly and clearly marked parts, exploded views, schematics. Spare parts. Personally, I'd spend half a night to repair 30-40euro device w/o any documentation, just b/c I can -- but that shall not be the norm.
This kind of misses the point though.
Don't get me wrong, the above is nice to have as a law, but it does not really understand the underlying problem domain. Louis Rossmann explained it several times already; the problem was not that primarily that upstream companies refuse to repair something, but that they deliberately make it harder for downstream folks to repair something, for many reasons. Planned obsolescence, trade secrets and other shenanigans, unable to purchase replacements parts and so forth. Having a law that forces easy repairs onto the upstream company, DOES NOT FIX THE DOWNSTREAM PROBLEM; and in some cases it will make it worse. If the EU were serious about fighting for consumers, they would require of all companies operating in the EU, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, to not deliberately make it harder for downstream people to repair things. We now live in the age of 3D printing, so really repairing anything should be much much easier (at the least for simple materials; I understand that 3D printing isn't that great yet with regards to tiny electronics parts). To me it seems as if lobbyists always sneak in and worsen the legislation here. Both in the EU and in the USA.
Down the road, if we make it, we will have access to funds for a few roles that maintain spare parts and a repair (more likely replace/refurb) department, that will coordinate with our manufacturing houses.
None of this blocks innovation or velocity for early stage startups. Unless you have more concrete examples I'm somehow missing?
If your hardware start-up was going to tell me to buy a new product if it broke after a year, then I've no problem if it doesn't get going in the EU.
We don't need more cheap tat, we need things that can have a reasonable shelf life. We used to expect that from products as standard. Then when more things became electronic, it started to drift into obsolence after X years.
But there's so many products that don't need to be replaced. I don't need a state-of-the-art pedometer or weighing scales, I just need one that does the job it did when I bought it.