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

151–160 of 321 posts

Re: A “right to repair” movement tools up

#151

Post by adrianN »

orf wrote: post #105
noam87 wrote: post #99

I've been thinking recently that there is exists a completely unxplored market in tech. Local shops based around FOSS / open hardware where designers, hardware and software people work together to build custom projects for their clients. I would call this person a "technology artisan", because the closest analogue I can think of is a tailor or a carpinter. So, for example, a family would go to their local technology…

Wouldn't that be insanely expensive compared to off the shelf solutions and result in a hodge-podge of insecure, half baked solutions?

After two or three similar people have had their custom thingy build the next person could use the "off the shelf" open source solution with a little customization.

Re: A “right to repair” movement tools up

#152

Post by TeMPOraL »

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…

> "it's dangerous to let people repair these sensitive products"

One has to ask what's really more likely to destroy my life - the glass of the iPhone I clumsily tried to repair, or the shit I wrote on that iPhone...

Re: A “right to repair” movement tools up

#153

Post by TeMPOraL »

orf wrote: post #105
noam87 wrote: post #99

I've been thinking recently that there is exists a completely unxplored market in tech. Local shops based around FOSS / open hardware where designers, hardware and software people work together to build custom projects for their clients. I would call this person a "technology artisan", because the closest analogue I can think of is a tailor or a carpinter. So, for example, a family would go to their local technology…

Wouldn't that be insanely expensive compared to off the shelf solutions and result in a hodge-podge of insecure, half baked solutions?

Off the shelf solutions are already insanely expensive, because companies are still milking people on the "smart" label.

Re: A “right to repair” movement tools up

#154

Post by dclowd9901 »

thechao wrote: post #12
stefco_ wrote: post #6

I hope at some point we'll start including recycling/disassembly and replacement externalities into price somehow. I don't know how you would do that in a fair way, but it is frustrating that there aren't a ton of corrective market forces to encourage manufacturers to make highly reusable, repairable, recyclable devices. All of this electronics churn is environmentally terrible, and it's frustrating that, as with car…

I always thought that a regulation along the lines of "if you sell it, you must give the customer the ability to dispose of it" would be nice. And, yes, I do think that means Amazon would have to have some sort of bricks-and-mortar operation: at minimum there must be a shop owned by someone , which Amazon has a deal with, that you'd be able to drop your discarded Amajunk off at. Also, I also think we should have a ca…

Tax on gasoline like that would only affect the poorest of citizens. Charge it on shares of gasoline producing companies and car companies so their share holders scream at them to move to less carbon-y energy creation mechanisms.

Re: A “right to repair” movement tools up

#155

Post by kartickv »

Won't the issue take care of itself if: 1) Companies are taxed for the all the environmental pollution they case and 2) The minimum warranty period is 5 years. If the device fails before that, the company should lend you a replacement for the remainder of the warranty period, or refund a prorated amount.

Re: A “right to repair” movement tools up

#156

Post by kartickv »

BartSaM wrote: post #45
amelius wrote: post #42

Why don't we just pay for services instead of buying products? This pushes the problem of maintenance to the service provider, thus making it more efficient and thus cheaper and more environment-friendly. Also, it completely eliminates the problem of planned obsolescence. There are some downsides, such as that usage of the service outside the contract becomes impossible, so contracts should be sufficiently broad (and…

Now, when Steam decides that you have violated their ToS in some way, they will close your account and lock you out of everything you bought. This happens, rarely, but happens. Do you want to be dependant on an idea of a corporation that they will treat you fair? Are you OK to give away your washing machine and oven just because you had troubles with finances and you missed one payment?

We're more dependent on corporations when we buy things, since we have given them all the money upfront. A service model gives us more leverage.

As someone who had to throw away a washing machine because the company wouldn't service it, I would have very much preferred a rental model where the loss would have been theirs.

To flip your question: Are you okay not being able to buy a washing machine because you couldn't make a significant one-time payment? Are you okay with your investment going waste because the company wouldn't service it? I would say no to both.

Re: A “right to repair” movement tools up

#157

Post by TeMPOraL »

takeda wrote: post #60
sethj wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a Thinkpad T-430 and the thing's great. I can strip it down to just the motherboard and display in less than 5 minutes.

I don't know if suggesting a laptop from a company that uses DRM to lock out 3rd party batteries is something suitable in this thread.

I don't think there is a company on that market that doesn't do something anticonsumer. It's a "pick the least bad" problem.

Re: A “right to repair” movement tools up

#158

Post by nradov »

stefco_ wrote: post #6

I hope at some point we'll start including recycling/disassembly and replacement externalities into price somehow. I don't know how you would do that in a fair way, but it is frustrating that there aren't a ton of corrective market forces to encourage manufacturers to make highly reusable, repairable, recyclable devices. All of this electronics churn is environmentally terrible, and it's frustrating that, as with car…

Just require all manufacturers to charge a disposal deposit when selling any consumer electronics. Consumer gets the deposit back upon returning the device to an authorized center for disposal or recycling. A $15 deposit would probably give most people sufficient incentive to do the right thing.

Re: A “right to repair” movement tools up

#159

Post by TeMPOraL »

altitudinous wrote: post #141

I did not read the article. However with the rise of denser technologies and mass assembly by machines in order to achieve a price point and manufacturing volume it is inevitable that we won't be able to repair items ourselves. That is just the way it is. I wouldn't want to overanalyse it. You might want to repair something yourself but you are in a minority and the market wants to buy products for cheap and throw th…

The market is not God, and what it wants is not cast in stone. The current market practices are wasteful, antisocial and unsustainable, but the market only gives a damn if there's enough pressure for it.

Re: A “right to repair” movement tools up

#160

Post by wfo »

microcolonel wrote: post #109

I think the trend of reclassifying popular commodities or opportunities as "rights" is pretty tacky, and ultimately counterproductive. What you should really want, if you like reparability, is a market for reparable goods. In general, it will be more costly than mass-produced integrated goods, but foisting repair opportunities onto every consumer product will ultimately make people less satisfied with the products on…

It is natural to phrase it as a right. People have been able to do this for the entirety of human history, every moment in every civilization repairing things has been legal. In fact, it has been celebrated, respected as something obviously good. It is not good for the profit of some large corporations so it is now, for the first time, being banned.

It was never thought of as a right before because it is so obviously acceptable and good that nobody had even conceived that somebody might try to deny it.

Post reply on HN