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

A “right to repair” movement tools up

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 321 posts

Re: A “right to repair” movement tools up

#81

Post by mastax »

feelin_googley wrote: post #65

"In the future, repairability is likely to become even more of an issue, says Kyle Wiens, iFixit's chief executive. Not only do firms want customers to use authorised dealers, but a growing number of products are also no longer stand-alone devices , but rather delivery vehicles for services that generate additional revenues. " Gee, I wonder who started that trend?

Gillette?

Having started to use a safety razor recently, I'm starting to think that the impetus for moving to cartridge razors was just to make the refills harder to interchange and less of a commodity.

Re: A “right to repair” movement tools up

#82

Post by madeofpalk »

bionoid wrote: post #70
madeofpalk wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That already happens, but on a different scale. When Apple has to repair or replace an iPhone, they're giving you a remanufactured iPhone using reused internal parts like screws or shielding. This is factored into the costs of an iPhone which keeps them 'lower' / profit margins higher.

> they're giving you a remanufactured iPhone using reused internal parts like screws or shielding And, unless something changed recently, batteries. My iPhone 5 had a faulty charging socket, which got worse. A month after unboxing, it would no longer charge at all, so I handed it in for repair. Got back a unit with half the battery life and a faulty charging socket. I gave it to a good GSoC student across the world a…

Consumable parts are and have never been reused. Just sounds like you had a faulty part, rather than a reused one.

Re: A “right to repair” movement tools up

#83

Post by throwaway613834 »

snuxoll wrote: post #75
jackbravo wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

could you share one?

They basically all boil down to trade secrets and "it's dangerous to let people repair these sensitive products". Personally, I don't see how gerber files with board layouts and selling replacement components violates any trade secrets, considering the former is readily reverse-engineered (even if you can't easily determine exact routing for things in layers not on the board surface) and the latter poses them no risk…

> They basically all boil down to trade secrets and "it's dangerous to let people repair these sensitive products".

Not sure where you saw that (link?), but no, they don't. Watch the video I just linked above on what their lobbyists say.

Re: A “right to repair” movement tools up

#85

Post by throwaway613834 »

madeofpalk wrote: post #82
bionoid wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they're giving you a remanufactured iPhone using reused internal parts like screws or shielding And, unless something changed recently, batteries. My iPhone 5 had a faulty charging socket, which got worse. A month after unboxing, it would no longer charge at all, so I handed it in for repair. Got back a unit with half the battery life and a faulty charging socket. I gave it to a good GSoC student across the world a…

Consumable parts are and have never been reused. Just sounds like you had a faulty part, rather than a reused one.

> Consumable parts are and have never been reused

Are phone parts "consumable"? I thought "consumable" meant refers to things that get "used up" like milk, ink, pens, etc., not storage media or LCD screens or the like...

Re: A “right to repair” movement tools up

#86

Post by nebulous1 »

xoa wrote: post #20

I will admit that I am not a fan of the "right to repair" movement in terms of what I've seen from it so far when it comes to actual legislative proposals, and I also find a lot of the way it talks down to current consumers and market forces distasteful and short sighted. I can absolutely see how in some areas of production narrowly tailored rules might be beneficial in terms of efforts manufacturers make to prevent…

I think there are other options regarding security, such as detection rather than prevention, and I unless all inter-component communication is encrypted then ultimately it still can't guarantee security (or even then, although this is all varying degrees of unlikely, at least at the moment)

Really the crux of this is whether this is best answered by the markets like you say, or by regulation. I see plenty of issues with it being answered by governments, but I have absolutely no faith in the market coming up with a good solution for this, as the players have too much power and the consumers are uneducated. I worry, of course, that governments will stick their oar in but paddle in the opposite direction.

Re: A “right to repair” movement tools up

#87

Post by ToxicCorgi »

thatswrong0 wrote: post #13
contingencies wrote: post #8

The real issue is that consumers are stupid and want to stay stupid which means modular products, being more complicated, are not something they are going to shell out for. It's a lot easier to say "buy this widget for $x a month for 48 months" (classic US example) than to say "what computer do you have? oh you don't know. why don't we arrange for me to have a look at it another day. uhuh. ok well i've taken a look a…

Or maybe they aren't stupid and they're simply acting in their own self-interest, which means not wasting their time with unnecessarily more complicated products that offer little to them in return. Or maybe they do want the products they use to be status symbols. Or maybe they simply don't share your point of view. This doesn't mean they're necessarily stupid, it means they're different from you.

I disagree; there is some definition of 'stupid' that exists in the same shape and form in most consumers. It stems from laziness, desire for showing off and instant gratification, and lack of critical thinking when being bombarded with marketing BS like cool visuals, gimmicky features and awesome keywords. The same self-interest leads to them being stupid and, usually, staying stupid.

The stupidity of the average consumer manifests itself in not wanting to "waste time" with some "nerdy tech thingamajig" (boohoo muh computer is slow, must be the viruses and need more RAM, lemme buy myself a new one, ooh look the slimmest model, lemme get that. Soldered everything? Non-user replaceable battery? Huh, wtf are those. It's slim and pretty tho) or comparing products on the shelf to make the best, most practical choice (it has X famous brand name that's associated with cool and expensive, great to show off to friends, especially on social media because everyone on there cares. Oh there's a vocal bunch speaking about bad reliability, poor quality that falls apart 1 year and 1 day after purchase and terrible price/performance ratio? Must be lies spread by dem haters).

Yup, pre-purchase research and post-purchase diagnostics (not even asking for much, just googling a problem to see if it's unfixable/too expensive to fix) are things today's consumers would rather not 'waste time' with because they clearly have better things to do that aren't a waste of time, like taking more selfies for Snapchat, raking in likes and loves on Facebook and Instagram and surfing the internet (anyone up for more shopping and getting 'inspiration' from friends on what to buy next to one-up them?) on their $2000 Facebook/web browsing machine and $1000 phone.

The best part is very few of these people learn from others and their own mistakes. They'll continue to buy the same crappy products because they saw a cool ad or all their friends are talking about it without any thinking or research. They'll stay loyal to overpriced brands with poor reliability because 'dat brand name doe' and continue with their need to see and be seen having/doing/wanting cool things. Simple reading to make an informed buying decision? Too uncool! F-that!

Re: A “right to repair” movement tools up

#88

Post by throwaway613834 »

hutzlibu wrote: post #74
xoa wrote: post #20

I will admit that I am not a fan of the "right to repair" movement in terms of what I've seen from it so far when it comes to actual legislative proposals, and I also find a lot of the way it talks down to current consumers and market forces distasteful and short sighted. I can absolutely see how in some areas of production narrowly tailored rules might be beneficial in terms of efforts manufacturers make to prevent…

"I actively do not want anyone but Apple to be able to mess with the hardware authentication chain on my iPhone" If you give something away to repair you allways have to trust them. If they are evil, there are almost unlimited ways to manipulate and plant spyware etc. Apple devices might indeed be harder to manipulate, but I doubt an expert will have much trouble with it, if he has physical access to it. So in the en…

> If you give something away to repair you always have to trust them.

I got confused about this initially too, but that's not relevant to the argument being made here. The argument isn't about repair -- that's something you can always avoid. The argument is about others (thiefs, etc.) messing with security-related components and bypassing security. He doesn't want that to be possible.

Re: A “right to repair” movement tools up

#89

Post by BartSaM »

amelius wrote: post #61
TimTheTinker wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Goods and services are always (and will always be) separate for those at the top of the economic food chain. Why should it be different for those who are less privileged? Looks like a likely avenue for exploiting or at least taking control/power/freedom from other people. Don’t count on service quality laws to make up the disparity caused by losing the right to full ownership of one’s property.

> Goods and services are always (and will always be) separate for those at the top of the economic food chain. Why should it be different for those who are less privileged? Looks like a likely avenue for exploiting or at least taking control/power/freedom from other people. Can you come up with a concrete scenario? > Don’t count on service quality laws to make up the disparity caused by losing the right to full owner…

I am afraid this solution could kill second-hand market with "service providers" not happy to dispose of old products to keep the prices high.

Would iPhone allow the second-hand market for their phones? Not likely, thus keeping a huge part of the less fortunate population out of the possibility to get hands-on premium products.

Your model could be an addition to the current service model, not a replacement.

Re: A “right to repair” movement tools up

#90

Post by digi_owl »

throwaway613834 wrote: post #85
madeofpalk wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consumable parts are and have never been reused. Just sounds like you had a faulty part, rather than a reused one.

> Consumable parts are and have never been reused Are phone parts "consumable"? I thought "consumable" meant refers to things that get "used up" like milk, ink, pens, etc., not storage media or LCD screens or the like...

Batteries can be consumable after a fashion, as they lose capacity with each charge cycle. The effect can be reduced via certain techniques (depending on the battery chemistry involved), but so far never completely eliminated. Just consider it entropy in action, really.
Post reply on HN