Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Fight for the “Right to Repair”

smithsonianmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 325 posts

Re: The Fight for the “Right to Repair”

#231

Post by doriangray1 »

mikeash wrote: post #19
RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #4

I think this whole open source and right to repair/modify will be very interesting with self-driving cars, because of their interaction with the commons. Here are some issues. There have been some discussions about the ethics of self-driving cars if it should sacrifice the lives of the people in the cars to save more lives. In a right to repair/modify wouldn't a lot of people pay to have the algorithm changed for the…

I think the ethical question is greatly overblown. The odds of being in a situation where there's any sort of ethical choice to make are so remote as to not really be worth considering. 99.9999% of the time, the correct choice when faced with an impending crash will be to brake as hard as the driving surface allows and steer to avoid obstacles as much as possible. In any case, tinkering and commons already intersect…

I respectfully disagree. Car crashes killed 38000 people in 2015, and injured around 8 million in the US alone. Designing any vehicle involves ethical choices about safety and the US has developed traffic laws over time to try to protect the safety of drivers. Autonomous vehicles will surely save lives compared to thier manual counterparts, but we shouldn't discount the ethical questions involved. Everyone has the Right to own property and to modify the property that they own. If I wanted to tear my car's muffler out and remove the break lights, that would be my constitutional right. However, the above right does not allow me to go driving on public roads at nighttime - because that would be violating other Driver's rights to safety. It is the same concept with self driving cars, and our legal system will eventually develope an enforceable code which (hopefully) will protect the rights of everyone in an equal measure.

*I am an Environmental Law professional.

Re: The Fight for the “Right to Repair”

#232

Post by TeMPOraL »

whyenot wrote: post #210
waterphone wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

iPhones are reasonably easy to repair some of the major components still, but Apple laptops have been getting worse in that regard, with batteries glued in and unserviceable, etc.

Right or wrong, if consumers have the choice between a thinner, lighter laptop with better battery life and a more clunky laptop that is easier to repair, most appear to be choosing the former over the latter.

Consumers have very little choice. Especially with Apple, which releases whatever it wants and people buy it anyway. But with laptops and smartphones and other electronics, the "choice" often is that some phone operator or big electronics store chain randomly decides it's "Thin Device Era™" or something, and discounts a particular subset of devices. And people don't wait forever to buy a new device, they usually need one "right fucking now", so they choose from what's available.

Re: The Fight for the “Right to Repair”

#233

Post by TeMPOraL »

jwatte wrote: post #197

Honestly, most products are becoming so integrated, and so delicate, that "repair" means "replace the one expensive bit." Couple that with every lighter, ever thinner, ever flimsier, glue based laminated construction, needed to hit market size and weight requirements, and you get absolutely no economic sense in designing for, or supporting, repair. In a sense, it's our growing skill at mass fabrication, and the growi…

Wall Mart shoppers are reactive, they buy what they're told to buy.

The funny thing about mass fabrication is, that it can make pretty much anything equally well. It's disconnected from the actual "meaning" of the product being manufactured. So if someone were to design a phone that's fully user-serviceable, with all components replaceable and swappable for third-party products, Chinese factories would not care. They'd make it just as easily as they make iPhones now.

I'm pretty sure people would buy such a phone if a big enough company decided to do that and put their marketing department to work. General population buys what it is told to buy.

Re: The Fight for the “Right to Repair”

#234

Post by TeMPOraL »

rahimnathwani wrote: post #218
avindroth wrote: post #176

I once had to fix a fairly complex piece of electronics and when I asked the company for a repair, they told me the directions over the phone. Unscrew this, take that out, check this, boom. I was more than impressed by their confidence in their hardware.

Please tell us the name of the company, so that we can give them our business if we need the type of products they sell.

I second this request. I think it's important to reward companies doing things good, not just punishing companies doing things bad.

Re: The Fight for the “Right to Repair”

#235

Post by TeMPOraL »

robert1976 wrote: post #44

If substantial numbers of consumers are demanding fixable/open electronics, a manufacturer could comply and fill a great need! My guess is that market is v small. Regulation is unneccessary here.

The market isn't demand driven. People may be complaining, but as long as nobody fulfills the demand, people will keep buying the stuff they buy now. Which happen to be more profitable for manufacturers than fulfilling the demand would be.

Re: The Fight for the “Right to Repair”

#236

Post by belorn »

twblalock wrote: post #117
belorn wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your post above does not say why this particular case is better handled by the market.

Because if consumers wanted repairable devices, companies would make them. To not do so would be to ignore an opportunity to sell products and make money. So, if people really want repairable devices, they would exist. The fact that they do not exist in large numbers indicates that consumers don't really want them very much. If consumers don't want them, why should companies be forced to manufacture them? Requiring a…

Lemons (the economical model, not the fruit) would argue against that claim. People want cars that work, but they also want pay as little as possible. Since customer can't easily determine the additional costs of not being able to repair a product outside of "approved dealers", the market will favor cheaper products even if they are less desirable for the customer. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons

Here is a solution: Lets have a mandatory class in every public school that teach children the cost difference between an "open" market where anyone can repair a product, and a closed monopoly where only the approved shops are allowed to do the after-market repairs. Then customers will be armed with the knowledge to compare products. Do you think companies will keep making products that you can't repair, or will the market promote the preferences of the majority?

Alternative solution: Add a market requirement that the sticker price include the price of repairs and failure rates over the expected life cycle of the product. This allow the customer to directly compare products and decide if they want to pay a cheaper car that cost 10x to repair and the owner is prevented to do it themselves, or a more expensive car where anyone can do the repair, including the owner. Again we would see a shift in market behavior, both by customers and manufacturers.

Re: The Fight for the “Right to Repair”

#237

Post by CM30 »

acbabis wrote: post #59
rando3826 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think the ethical question is greatly overblown. Not at all. One programmer is going to make choices that affect ~ a billion vehicles one day, so something that doesn't happen 99.9999% per hour will happen 100 times per hour. And it's going to be more mundane things, like programming the speed limit 1 mph slower results in 500 less deaths per year, or using drm/copyright to stop poor people from getting driving s…

If the cars obey the posted speed limit and slow down and split-the-difference when on curves or near hazards (such as children running on the sidewalk), the hypothetical moral dilemmas shouldn't even happen. So far, I've only heard of one accident involving a Google car, and there wasn't a fatality.

Natural environment/human/animal behaviour related issues kind of throw a wrench in that idea.

Yes, in normal conditions you shouldn't ever be in a situation where the 'trolley problem' is relevant. But it's also quite easy to imagine external factors that might make it unavoidable. Like say, a car running out of power in the middle of the road, falling trees, buildings, fences or other obstacles, people or animals in the road, natural disasters or freak weather conditions.

All of these situations open up a possibility that the car won't have enough time to stop regardless of the speed limit.

Re: The Fight for the “Right to Repair”

#238

Post by ernestbro »

The French have an approach to this problem as well "forcing manufacturers to tell consumers how long their appliances will last. French companies will also have to inform consumers how long spare parts for the product will be available"[1].

IMHO, because it would only apply to French manufacturers, it will drive any manufacturing outside of France. Similar to the 35 hour work week: interesting principle, bad outcome.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/shortcuts/2015/mar/03...

Re: The Fight for the “Right to Repair”

#239

Post by kilotaras »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #233
jwatte wrote: post #197

Honestly, most products are becoming so integrated, and so delicate, that "repair" means "replace the one expensive bit." Couple that with every lighter, ever thinner, ever flimsier, glue based laminated construction, needed to hit market size and weight requirements, and you get absolutely no economic sense in designing for, or supporting, repair. In a sense, it's our growing skill at mass fabrication, and the growi…

Wall Mart shoppers are reactive, they buy what they're told to buy. The funny thing about mass fabrication is, that it can make pretty much anything equally well. It's disconnected from the actual "meaning" of the product being manufactured. So if someone were to design a phone that's fully user-serviceable, with all components replaceable and swappable for third-party products, Chinese factories would not care. They…

https://atap.google.com/ara/

Re: The Fight for the “Right to Repair”

#240

Post by Nullabillity »

wil421 wrote: post #182
Nullabillity wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or you could buy another brand of laptop instead, next time...?

Which other laptops support macOS? I have a company Dell that's horrible. Had many Vaios in the past that were great but the new ones aren't that great. Don't want a tablet or a touch screen as my main device or an Internet only device (chrome book).

Personally I've mostly been using ASUSes lately, which IMO offer decent value and have generally been very easy to upgrade.

> I have a company Dell that's horrible.

Aren't company computers pretty generally crap? I'm not sure that's a fair comparison to draw...

Post reply on HN