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

UK 'Right to repair' law to come in this summer

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 208 posts

Re: UK 'Right to repair' law to come in this summer

#191

Post by foobar33333 »

edent wrote: post #38
foobar33333 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is you need to be highly skilled to do that repair. So many times I have ordered replacement parts and then either broken something like a plastic ribbon cable connector, or I have installed the new part and it still doesn't work.

I cannot emphasise enough how NOT highly skilled I am. That repair could have been done by anyone with a screwdriver and a steady hand. Take a look at the photos in my blog-post and tell me what was complicated. OK, I don't have the skills to desolder and replace a busted capacitor. But most domestic equipment is pretty plug-and-play. I am unable to use a multimeter to diagnose an issue. But lots of devices come with…

I'm not saying this particular repair was hard, but in general you have to get lucky for an easy repair. I have ordered replacement parts a few times and found that it still doesn't work and I just wasted my time as well as money on new parts. When a brand new device is not too expensive and will be an upgrade over the one you are trying to fix, the choice to buy becomes more compelling.

Re: UK 'Right to repair' law to come in this summer

#192

Post by pabs3 »

suyjuris wrote: post #189
pabs3 wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a misconception, GPLv2 also has the requirement that you receive "the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable". The position of the Software Freedom Conservancy is certainly that the user be given the freedom to replace the Linux kernel.

Having the “the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable” does not help you any if the device refuses to load a modified kernel. If the GPLv2 were sufficient, then why would the FSF see a need to create version 3?

The device refusing to load a modified kernel is a GPLv2 violation, at least Conservancy interpret "scripts" to include everything needed to run the modified code, since the device recipient does not have software freedom without the ability to load modified code. The GPLv3 has additional improvements in addition to the clarified requirements around device lockdown.

Re: UK 'Right to repair' law to come in this summer

#193

Post by simion314 »

zepto wrote: post #180
simion314 wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You aren’t forced to buy an iPhone if you don’t want this. Other Android devices are also similarly bad to repair, with a locked Store and few have an supported way to actually root them. The mobile market is not as diverse like car market or say web/cloud hosting market. We can't give Apple or Samsung an exception from warranty laws because "the user should buy X that offers warranty" , free market only works only…

> with a locked Store and few have an supported way to actually root them This has nothing to do with repairability. > We can't give Apple or Samsung an exception from warranty laws We don’t, so it’s not clear why you’re even saying this.

>We don’t, so it’s not clear why you’re even saying this.

Because you demanded the user should chose if the wants a product with the "repairable" feature , so I assume your logic should be consistent and you would also like to have the option to say pay less and get an iPhone with no warranty. For some reasons we force warranty and IMO for the exact same reason we should for basic repair ability ( diagnostic software,schematics, parts and ability to remove the DRM)

I hope this is more clear, we can talk about tractors or fridges so we can avoid the Apple bias.

Re: UK 'Right to repair' law to come in this summer

#194

Post by suyjuris »

pabs3 wrote: post #192
suyjuris wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having the “the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable” does not help you any if the device refuses to load a modified kernel. If the GPLv2 were sufficient, then why would the FSF see a need to create version 3?

The device refusing to load a modified kernel is a GPLv2 violation, at least Conservancy interpret "scripts" to include everything needed to run the modified code, since the device recipient does not have software freedom without the ability to load modified code. The GPLv3 has additional improvements in addition to the clarified requirements around device lockdown.

That seems to me personally like a stretched reading, but I am no expert. Thank you for pointing me to it!

Re: UK 'Right to repair' law to come in this summer

#195

Post by dirkt »

peterlk wrote: post #99
CivBase wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A - A classification system that makes defines how "easy" it is to repair something, but necessarily doesn't mean that you or I can repair it at home.It will be "easy" IF you have the right 50,000 GBP tool. Louis Rossmann did a video tearing apart France's recent implementation of this from the perspective of an Apple repair technician. Despite serialized parts, soldered/glued components, and no available schematic…

I think this pretty well sums up the loophole. You have the right to repair... what? If I buy a macbook, do I get to replace the case? keyboard? These seem pretty reasonable. But what about the right to replace/repair the L1 cache? This is obviously a different story - it would be nice, but the part probably isn't manufactured by Apple (maybe it is on the new Silicon?). My point is that at some point, things start to…

> If I buy a macbook, do I get to replace the case? keyboard?

I would be happy if I got to replace the battery, and the SSD. You know, those two parts with a limited lifespan right from the start...

Instead, guess what is soldered to the mainboard in newer Macbooks? Yes, those two.

Re: UK 'Right to repair' law to come in this summer

#196

Post by CivBase »

zepto wrote: post #181
CivBase wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To specifically answer your question, I don't think anyone's advocating for users to be provided with parts and schematics to repair a faulty L1 cache on a CPU, or for the CPU to be designed to support that kind of repair. Most "repairs" come in the form of replacing a component. Many products can be divided into components and those components can recursively be broken down into smaller components. At some point, th…

> and manufacturers abuse that to confuse people. Do they? Given that you later claim we don’t have the necessary criteria to determine repairability, this seems like an unsupportable claim. I hear just as much from people obsessed with repair that confuses people in the other direction. > I myself thought component-level board repair was a dead end until I stumbled upon Rossmann's channel. I think both you and peter…

> Do they? Given that you later claim we don’t have the necessary criteria to determine repairability, this seems like an unsupportable claim.

They absolutely do. We don't have objective legal criteria, but Louis Rossmann's channel and business is a testament to how component-level board repair is not only viable, but very profitable. Apple (or most other computer manufacturers, for that matter) will never offer you something like that.

I think that criteria is necessary for legal action. Otherwise, right-to-repair could be dead on arrival (eg France's implementation) or go way too far (eg requiring a CPU's L1 cache to be replaceable). However, even without that criteria, it's plain to see that manufacturers are minimizing repair options as much as possible to extract profits.

> I hear just as much from people obsessed with repair that confuses people in the other direction.

Okay? There isn't any issue for which I can confidently claim to agree with everyone in the same camp as me. Right to repair is no different. I can only defend my own thoughts and statements.

> Repairability may not be better overall if it comes at the expense of durability, or more use of materials.

> It’s not at all obvious, for example, that we have the numbers to support say, making iPhones more repairable vs simply designing them to neeed fewer more expensive repairs and then recycle them when failed.

I agree completely. I do not want us to enact legislation which forces manufacturers to sacrifice quality and progress just for the sake of repair.

That said, there is clearly a lot of room for repair to become more accessible without changing designs or adding hardly any cost to the manufacturer. That is what I'd like to see addressed with right-to-repair.

Re: UK 'Right to repair' law to come in this summer

#197

Post by oliwarner »

kenmacd wrote: post #173
oliwarner wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But if you can do it yourself, the economics change dramatically. I'm not sure what the proposed law changes in this respect. I've fixed boilers, phones, computers, TVs, dishwashers and washing machines to varying degrees without call-out costs. Part availability has never really been an issue.

That's great, but companies are taking direct actions to make this more difficult or even illegal. Try to repair your tractor, or the software in an older phone/tablet/tv. The software will actively prevent it, and if you break that digital lock you've broken the law in a lot of places.

And that's where this law seems to help best, squashing those sorts of hardware EULAs that forbid the user fixing them.

I'd put money on this not fixing all those problems though. Many markets have moved to non-ownership models (eg long lease) to keep people from reusing and repairing older models of things. No rights if it's not yours.

Still, if this means that I get access to first party smartphone parts, all the better. Third party screens are cheap, but they're awful too.

Re: UK 'Right to repair' law to come in this summer

#198

Post by zepto »

simion314 wrote: post #193
zepto wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> with a locked Store and few have an supported way to actually root them This has nothing to do with repairability. > We can't give Apple or Samsung an exception from warranty laws We don’t, so it’s not clear why you’re even saying this.

>We don’t, so it’s not clear why you’re even saying this. Because you demanded the user should chose if the wants a product with the "repairable" feature , so I assume your logic should be consistent and you would also like to have the option to say pay less and get an iPhone with no warranty. For some reasons we force warranty and IMO for the exact same reason we should for basic repair ability ( diagnostic software…

> so I assume your logic should be consistent and you would also like to have the option to say pay less and get an iPhone with no warranty.

What did I say that has anything to do with warranties?

> For some reasons we force warranty

This is just false. We don’t force warranties.

Companies are free to sell products without warranties.

Customers generally prefer warranties so companies provide them.

> and IMO for the exact same reason we should for basic repair ability ( diagnostic software,schematics, parts and ability to remove the DRM) I hope this is more clear,

It’s clear that your analogy is false.

Customers want warranties so they choose products which have them.

You mentioned earlier that android devices are as bad to repair, but that isn’t true either:

https://www.fairphone.com/en/

If customers want repairability they can have it. No need to force apple to do anything.

> we can talk about tractors or fridges so we can avoid the Apple bias.

Tractors and fridges are not like computers, this is a silly analogy.

Re: UK 'Right to repair' law to come in this summer

#199

Post by patmcc »

zepto wrote: post #188
patmcc wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In terms of "right to repair", Apple is a big offender, and the top one people think of - that's the reason I was singling them out. And no, I don't think we should force a company to sell a product for a particular price, or keep making it - unless they don't allow generic parts to work in their devices. That's my suggestion - Apple can give consumers the "right to repair" (and compete on all those features you ment…

> In terms of "right to repair", Apple is a big offender Not really. > Think of it in terms of cars - Computers are really not like cars... > if you bought a Honda car, would it be acceptable for it to not start if you put the "wrong brand" of tires on it? ...If tires were vulnerable to supply chain attacks, then not only would it be acceptable, some customers would demand it.

> Not really.

What? They're a huge company that makes it notably difficult/expensive/impossible to repair their products. Have you been following 'right to repair' stuff at all?

> Computers are really not like cars...

In what important way? I'm making the case that both should be repairable.

> ...If tires were vulnerable to supply chain attacks, then not only would it be acceptable, some customers would demand it.

Those customers always have the option of not repairing the device, or going directly to the manufacturer, or whatever. That's fine. But guess what, most people (rightfully) don't care that much about supply chain attacks, because they're not targets, or the risk is infinitesimal. They should have the right to repair their device.

Re: UK 'Right to repair' law to come in this summer

#200

Post by smitty1e »

derfitt wrote: post #31
smitty1e wrote: post #22

Whither capitalism? Why are companies not marketing along the lines of: "You can tinker with this. Our product does not treat you like the product." I'd pay a 20% premium or so not to be spied upon and enslaved. "Freedom isn't free. There's a heavy [FLOWERBED] fee."

What if it was a 200% premium?

Could be a reasonable tradeoff in context.
Post reply on HN