Support for right-to-repair laws slowly grows • Hacker News Board

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

#211

Post by brokenmachine » Fri, Jun 21, 2019, 3:41 AM UTC

s1512783 wrote: post #106

woliveirajr wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (...) when they use an obscure electronic part (...) it reaches End of Life, they buy all the stock (...) and charge a lot for it. But in this case there were other suppliers and they buy all those parts to be exclusive sellers, and for a thing (a plane) that is expected to have a long life. And still it's much more easy on the client than having a propertary chip with planned obsolescence (print 2,000 pages, or be…

> I'm mad with a chip stop working for unknown reasons because it was designed to. I understand that you're angry about your HP printer not working, I also agree that the 'protection' measures in printers are ridiculous, especially on ink cartridges. I also agree that planned obsolescence is terrible for the environment, as are business models like those for inkjet printers, where the device is given away for nothing…

>we may slowly be reaching the point of a "heirloom" laptop. I'd love to see that one day

Not if the screen's glued in and the battery's not removable.

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

#212

Post by brokenmachine » Fri, Jun 21, 2019, 3:50 AM UTC

Shivetya wrote: post #53

someguydave wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is that scenario Apple’s problem?

Some customers would assume that since a place did repair the phone that Apple approves of them doing so, therefor putting liability on Apple. Any such harm coming from that phone would be first applied to Apple and Apple would have to expend money to prove otherwise. I have no problem with allow customers to select the shop they want for out of warranty work but I am fully in the camp of manufacturers being able to…

>Some customers would assume that since a place did repair the phone that Apple approves of them doing so, therefor putting liability on Apple.

This whole argument is that Apple should not be able to "approve" anyone from doing anything they want with the phone that they supposedly paid for and own.

>Plus people do have an unrealistic idea of which parts would ever be replaceable. Batteries sure, but individual chips would be not be.

There was a video I saw about a guy putting together his own iphone from parts in China. They can replace individual chips. But not with the DMCA.

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

#213

Post by brokenmachine » Fri, Jun 21, 2019, 4:03 AM UTC

junipertea wrote: post #39

someguydave wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is that scenario Apple’s problem?

It hurts Apple brand

And? If you sell a product, you don't own it anymore. The owner owns it and should be able to do whatever they want with it.

If someone is selling exploding batteries that fit an iphone, it's up to the government to shut them down for being unsafe, or the burn victims to sue the exploding battery repair shops.

Despite their marketing, Apple is not the only company in the world that is capable of making a non-exploding battery.

The FUD about iphones being some magical object carried down on the wings of angels and suddenly becoming unclean and flammable because a third-party battery was inserted is ridiculous.

Laptops have had replaceable batteries for decades without the sky falling down - until the Apple reality-distortion field was successfully engaged to disable people's rational thinking.

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

#214

Post by brokenmachine » Fri, Jun 21, 2019, 4:13 AM UTC

CDSlice wrote: post #198

laughinghan wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love everything about your discussion. 1. 100% agree 2. I've thought a little bit about this. I think it would be fine if the warranty can't be voided if the consumer can show in court that there's a preponderance of evidence that the issue they're having is unrelated to the third-party repair. This might mean in practice warranties hard to enforce if you've gone in for third-party repair, but I feel like usually i…

I think that for 3 the problem isn't having a spyware fingerprint sensor that steals your fingerprint but rather having a fake fingerprint reader that always reports a match which would let you break into any iPhone.

Seems silly to me if that's the way it works. Why not have a "dumb" reader and verify the fingerprint on the main CPU?

You're just adding complexity with having to have a secure channel between the reader and the CPU.

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

#215

Post by someguydave » Fri, Jun 21, 2019, 5:11 AM UTC

nomel wrote: post #36

someguydave wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is that scenario Apple’s problem?

Or to put a more sinister way, it could be entirely prevented by Apple with full hardware signing. It could mean that having an iPhone in your hand means it's completely legitimate, increasing actual and perceived quality and resale value.

“Full hardware signing” is easier said than done.

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

#216

Post by patrick5415 » Fri, Jun 21, 2019, 6:03 AM UTC

feocco wrote: post #126

quanticle wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By that logic cars shouldn't have to abide by crash safety regulations. If you want a safe car, buy a Volvo. Everyone else can drive deathtraps that burst into flames if they're so much as dented.

Safety is important. Forcing a design of a product to your objectively high standards is not.

Saying safety is important or repairablity is important are both subjective value judgements. I see zero reason why your estimation of the value of a safe car should force me to subsidize that safety when I buy a car, any more than me valuing a repairable design should force you to subsidize the extra documentation.

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

#217

Post by TeMPOraL » Fri, Jun 21, 2019, 7:20 AM UTC

jeffchien wrote: post #200

TeMPOraL wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

By extension, are you proposing a ban on water filters and filter cartridges? Keurigs and their cartridges? Or are you just concerned with printers, or base things that you consider fragile and wasteful? Where would you draw the line? I don't think I've ever had one of my consumer printers break (and I use third-party ink so I'm not even subsidizing them in the end), so the extremity of this argument is surprising. I…

> By extension, are you proposing a ban on water filters and filter cartridges?

Not necessarily. But filters are cheap pieces of plastics, whereas the whole magic is in the cartridges, so the pricing structure seems OK.

> Keurigs and their cartridges?

Definitely. Keurig deserves to be dissolved for DRMing coffee and for being an ecological disaster.

> I don't think I've ever had one of my consumer printers break (and I use third-party ink so I'm not even subsidizing them in the end), so the extremity of this argument is surprising.

I had consumer inkjets break on me as often as they run out of ink. And for everyone I know, even in my family, the result was always the same: if basic maintenance like cleaning and re-cleaning heads and banging a bit with a fist didn't work, the printer went to trash and a new one was bought.

To be clear, I'm not against consumables in general. I'm against selling a product way below costs, hoping to recoup the subsidy through inflated pricing of consumables. I feel it's an unfair practice and that it promotes wastefulness and negative ecological externalities.

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

#218

Post by TeMPOraL » Fri, Jun 21, 2019, 7:21 AM UTC

brandonmenc wrote: post #203

TeMPOraL wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Because I print like ten pages a year, and I'd rather not have to drop half a grand or more on a printer like in the old days just for that.

If you print ten pages a year, I'd rather you go to a print shop instead of being yet another person whose inkjet printer will end up in a landfill in a year.

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

#219

Post by TeMPOraL » Fri, Jun 21, 2019, 7:26 AM UTC

chicob wrote: post #201

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'…

Irresponsible people like, for example, those who deliberately installed defeat devices? Manufacturers don't trust users, but ask users to completely trust them. This is what we're asked to do post diesel emissions scandal.

> Irresponsible people like, for example, those who deliberately installed defeat devices?

Yes, them too!

> Manufacturers don't trust users, but ask users to completely trust them.

It's less that manufacturers don't trust users, and more that they could be held legally responsible for users' behavior here.

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

#220

Post by Aromasin » Fri, Jun 21, 2019, 7:51 AM UTC

woliveirajr wrote: post #50

Aromasin wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>no one should be allowed to charge more for a part than it charges for the whole I love right to repair policy as much as the next man, but I don't entirely agree with this statement. Certainly from my experience in the aerospace industry where some of the hardware is 20+ years old, the company might not have produced the product for the past decade and have none of the machines/molds/designs to make the part any lo…

Ok, but even in your example your thinking in spending $20k for a $500 piece for being able to use something that costs much more than $20k. Perhaps I should made it clear in the original reply: what I expect is to own the thing I buy. And owning it means that I should be able to do whatever I want with it, including fix it using third-party suppliers. Of course, if we think of extremes, I think that SpaceX will char…

Poor example then, but I have worked with aircraft where we've paid hundreds for a bolt, which is more than the price of the thing we're fixing, just so we don't have to go through the pain of replacing the whole unit - even though it would be cheaper. Again, I don't think when it comes to spares we should expect a company to continue to support a legacy product indefinitely. I don't expect Apple to continue producing parts for the Apple 2 just in case someone sends theirs back for repairs.

I'm not disagreeing with you as to your second comment, but that's not how I read your first comment at all. Something as sweeping "no one should be allowed to charge more for a part than it charges for the whole" has so many issues with it that putting it into practice would be beyond detrimental for manufacturers.