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

Support for right-to-repair laws slowly grows

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 249 posts

Re: Support for right-to-repair laws slowly grows

#61

Post by tsss »

isolli wrote: post #33
ericabiz wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Awful, honestly. The last set we ran on Facebook cost us $40 per booked appointment...not even break-even for us. We are working on video ads for pre-roll YouTube, etc., but it takes $ for tools (like cameras) and production. On Google, we learned how to optimize our ads and we were doing really well.

Have you tried advertising on DuckDuckGo? There's not as much traffic, but it could be worth it.

How many people do you know who use DuckDuckGo? How many of them would consider a repair shop instead of doing it themselves?

Re: Support for right-to-repair laws slowly grows

#62

Post by radcon »

simonh wrote: post #57
ericabiz wrote: post #18

Here's another way Apple may be killing "right to repair": I own a chain of independent cell phone and computer repair shops. Last year, Google unilaterally took away AdWords in our industry. The day after Thanksgiving, we woke up to find none of our ads were running. Google claimed this was because "third-party tech support providers" were scamming customers--i.e. people were buying AdWords for virus removal and tec…

Google screws you over and you blame Apple. How does that work?

She explained that in these two lines:

> I write all of this because the prevailing theory in our industry is that this is Apple's way of fighting against right to repair.

> If only Apple authorized service providers are allowed to advertise on Google for repair-related keywords, Apple will have taken more teeth out of "right to repair."

Re: Support for right-to-repair laws slowly grows

#63

Post by looeee »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #54
hombre_fatal wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Have you considered just phoning up the government?" has got to be the pinnacle of armchair activism.

Having been directly involved contributing towards a government investigation that resulted in the conviction and incarceration of someone for white collar crime, I would disagree with your assessment. Doing something > doing nothing. You have to start somewhere, and a phone call is a fine place to start. "Apathy is the glove into which evil slips its hand."

How did you get involved with that? Did you just phone up and offer your services?

Re: Support for right-to-repair laws slowly grows

#64

Post by TeMPOraL »

_Codemonkeyism wrote: post #49
woliveirajr wrote: post #4

Having my HP printer just failed because of something was wrong on the printer head (and replacing the printer head alone costs more than the printer, and is a easy job as it was made to be easily replaced), I'm always mad that a part costs equal or more than the whole thing. Any kind of "locked-in" to repair anything should always be against the law: no one should be allowed to charge more for a part than it charges…

You got a dirt cheap printer because you're paying with supplies. Printer heads are the normal price.

> You got a dirt cheap printer because you're paying with supplies.

Give me one good reason why this particular business model - base subsidized by consumables - shouldn't be straight up banned. I can't think of any.

Re: Support for right-to-repair laws slowly grows

#66

Post by mulmen »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #60
mulmen wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean like emission testing? What happens in 15 years when that particulate filter wears out and nobody can fix it but the rest of the car is fine?

> You mean like emission testing? Would be great. > What happens in 15 years when that particulate filter wears out and nobody can fix it but the rest of the car is fine? If it weren't so easy to get away with not having that filter, then what would happen is a secondary market that sells replacement filters for old cars, just like it happens for every other car part.

> Would be great.

In my state any vehicle under 25 years old must go in for emission testing every few years or the tabs can't be renewed.

> If it weren't so easy to get away with not having that filter, then what would happen is a secondary market that sells replacement filters for old cars, just like it happens for every other car part.

Assuming owners have a right to repair of course.

Re: Support for right-to-repair laws slowly grows

#67

Post by olliej »

th3l3mons wrote: post #59
olliej wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So Apple should be required to license their cpu design to other companies?

Apple has used US Customs to seize parts intended for repairs, including parts from donor boards. Apple sued (and last I knew was trying to appeal) a Norway repair shop for repairing iPhones using "counterfeit" components. iirc, some parts, including the display, must match appropriately or the OS won't boot as a form of parts validation, effectively preventing display swaps when repairing. I don't think the previous…

I’d be interested in knowing where those parts came from - do they come from Apple facilities (because apple does refurbish devices) or do they come entirely from third party recyclers?

I’ve seen plenty of articles about parts coming directly from factories, rather than from torn down devices.

What is the actual ratio of stolen vs recovered by non-Apple facilities ?

I’m sure Apple would claim 100% stolen and rtr orgs would say 100% recovered. Note that Apple pays (in the form of a discount) for returned devices so if a refurbisher is selling parts they’ve claimed aren’t recoverable they are selling stolen goods (reason for destroying irrecoverable devices is to reduce/remove incentive for this type of theft)

Re: Support for right-to-repair laws slowly grows

#68

Post by Zak »

> John Deere argues that access to the company’s proprietary software could be used to bypass emissions controls or safety measures.

On an analog car, I can physically remove emissions control devices. I can short circuit the seat belt warning. I can pull a fuse and disable the (not quite analog) antilock brakes. I can fail to change the tires when they have an unsafe amount of tread. I'm less familiar with farm equipment, but I'm sure there are many parallel modifications possible for analog farm equipment.

The courts and the public would not consider the manufacturer responsible in any of the above scenarios. It doesn't follow that it would be any different for users modifying digital systems.

Re: Support for right-to-repair laws slowly grows

#69

Post by jschwartzi »

mulmen wrote: post #55
TeMPOraL wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "On the other end, John Deere argues that access to the company’s proprietary software could be used to bypass emissions controls or safety measures" They do have a point on emission controls, though. Pretty much every person I know that owns a diesel car has either ripped out or plans to rip out the particulate filter. Doesn't matter that it's illegal, doesn't matter that it hurts everyone around. People just don'…

You mean like emission testing? What happens in 15 years when that particulate filter wears out and nobody can fix it but the rest of the car is fine?

Replacement parts aren't an issue for motor vehicles. In 2013 when I was still driving a 1995 GMC 1500 I could still easily source replacement parts for it, including replacement headlight trim rings, replacement fuel injectors, replacement fuel pumps, replacement throttle bodies, etc. etc.. So that's not an argument that holds any water whatsoever with me.

Worst case in 15 years there will be a few shops around the country who specialize in rebuilding/remanufacturing the part and will sell you a remanufactured part for a set price plus a refundable core fee. This was the case for my throttle body, and for the fuel pressure regulator there were rebuild kits available from Napa.

I'd like to see a class-action lawsuit against the people who rip them out as they're personally making it harder to breathe where I live. Your right to do whatever you want ends at my nose.

Re: Support for right-to-repair laws slowly grows

#70

Post by olliej »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #56
olliej wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A most of the time the third parties are sourcing from recovered parts, they’re dealing in parts stolen from factories. But you are right - if they did gets the parts from a different device they should be allowed to reuse them freely.

> A most of the time the third parties are sourcing from recovered parts, they’re dealing in parts stolen from factories. Wonder if there's any data on that. Given the extent to which China recycles electronics (some of which I've seen myself), it wouldn't surprise me if China-sourced replacement components were actually recovered from discarded devices.

Apple also has refurbishment programs that tear down and rebuild devices, I suspect some of those refurb parts are reported to Apple as being destroyed but then sold.
Post reply on HN