91–100 of 124 posts
Right to repair is great. Of course, 99% of us will end up bricking our phone if we tried to replace the screen or battery.
It's the case that in the EU and UK (for now) that we can take our cars to qualified independent service centres without invalidating our warrantees.
We want the same for our phones and other devices.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just wondering: if there was a 'right to repair' on computers in the 60's, would Intel have made an integrated microprocessor? I mean: you can't just fix a dead register by replacing it anymore... Lots of electronics have become more reliable by being fully integrated units. I prefer a durable phone to a repairable phone that needs constant replacements.
>Lots of electronics have become more reliable by being fully integrated units. I prefer a durable phone to a repairable phone that needs constant replacements. Your argument might be fair but is ignoring the 99% of the complaints: - DRM - no schematics - forbidding selling of spare parts - not sharing repair tools Maybe we should put an Apple exception so we don't trigger the fanboys then we get the right the repair…
They had just wiped their iPhone in an attempt to clean it up and restore the software to factory condition, and afterwards it required an OS software update for some reason (okay, sure), so this was done. After this update, some kind of "activation" was required (why?) before the device was usable at all for anything meaningful. This activation step failed, showing no particular reason for failure (only along the lines of "your iPhone couldn't be activated, call support"). Over the phone support wasn't helpful in giving any further details, so ultimately the device was brought to Apple where they used some diagnostic tools and determined that some hardware component (possibly cellular antenna?) was malfunctioning, and most likely this was preventing the activation from continuing (again, why?). The Apple tech said they could do nothing to repair the device (no hardware fix, no software fix), and as a "fix" offered only some sort of insultingly low-value buy-back option instead.
There are so many problems with this scenario:
1. Why was "activation" required to use the device at all at this point? The owner just wanted to use it to take some photos, listen to music, watch videos, and do some simple web browsing...No Apple services required, so why the forced requirement to activate the device?
2. Why was no useful information presented to the user about why the activation step failed, so they could at least attempt to troubleshoot for themselves (or with the help of someone of their choosing)?
3. Why does an otherwise unnecessary hardware sub-component (from the point of view of the device "owner" in the context of their usage) misbehaving prevent the ability to activate or otherwise use the device for some valid purpose?
I should mention that the device was out of warranty by this point, so it was not expected that any hardware repair would be at anyone's expense but the owner's, but this entire situation to me just looked like a pointless software-induced device disabling, for no good reason.
After witnessing such a situation, I can't help but wonder how much of this hostility and disrespect towards their customers is just so Apple can drive more new device sales, or what else is going on, but it certainly gave me a lot to think about where this particular company (and the industry in general) seems to be headed.
Right to repair is great. Of course, 99% of us will end up bricking our phone if we tried to replace the screen or battery.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are suspension systems, heating/AC, doors, sunroofs, motors controlling windows and doors, sealants around the same, lights, infotainment systems, seats and seat controls and motors controlling these, power steering, heat pumps, multiple cameras (each of which can fail), huge numbers of sensors (including radar), as well as wiring between the cameras and sensors and all other other components, differentials, br…
No oil changes, water pump, fuel pump, valves, spark plugs, radiator, alternator, starter, ignition system, oxygen sensors, etc. The amount of parts that go into a functioning internal combustion engine is quite staggering. The unfortunate part of this is that ICE cars are effectively trashed once the engine seizes. Replacing the engine is almost always more expensive than replacing the car, and many things can still…
So then you should have no problem buying an out of warranty Tesla - it should be inexpensive to maintain, right?
This is the difference between theory and practice. Even though ICE engines are more complex (true) they are nevertheless well understood, the manufacturing process has been refined, and there is a robust aftermarket and network of independent dealers so that costs are controlled. One thousand dollar door handle replacement on your Tesla (https://forums.tesla.com/discussion/90061/door-handle-not-fu...) is going to make up for a lot of oil changes.
The issue with PEV is that these are new components and the manufacturers have locked down the supply chain so you have to go to the manufacturer. That's how you get these insane repair costs and why right to repair and a robust third party market is so important.
Each time someone suggests how much cheaper to maintain the EVs are, ask them why no EV manufacturer is offering a 20 year 200,000 mile warranty. If the costs are really 90% lower, then this should be easy to do. And Tesla should easily be able to set aside only 10% of what other automakers set aside for warranty reserves. Yet we see that
"Business news publication Barron’s calculated that Tesla's third quarter additions to the warranty reserve were 2.7% of the company's car sales – slightly higher than the auto industry average of 2.5%. That’s despite the fact that electric engines have fewer parts that are subject to wear than internal combustion engines, making them potentially cheaper to maintain." https://fortune.com/2020/03/04/tesla-warranties-accounting-p...
But again, there is a difference between theory and practice, between a well understood, mature system and a new system. If you don't believe me, then go ahead and buy that out of warranty car with lots of new tech and see how it works out for you. I'll wait.
I remember back when I was young opening up an older stereo my parents had and right inside was the schematic and wiring diagram for the whole machine. My father had a shop manual for his 1962 Ford Thunderbird and not only did it tell you how to fix it but it also showed how to make any needed "special tools" for the car. I am not saying every single thing in the world is going to be user serviced...but it is a shame…
> f we continue to allow qualified users to be stifled by DRM for the sake of increasing profits through planned obsolecence we are going to see greatly increased levels of ecological damage and waste. Waste is one concern but there is also a hidden cost. Every curious person that we prevent from opening up or fixing their machine contributes to a net loss of innovation in the long run.
If a right to repair law falls through, is there a more effective path of consumer activism besides avoiding DRM-encumbered products?
I was re-reading (ok, actually trying to finish yet again) Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance and I think some of what Pirsig says at the beginning of the book applies here. Namely, the division between people who just want things to work and hope "somebody" else will step in when a fix is needed, and those who understand the abstraction sometimes leaks, and you need to be able to dig in and at least know how…
Just wondering: if there was a 'right to repair' on computers in the 60's, would Intel have made an integrated microprocessor? I mean: you can't just fix a dead register by replacing it anymore... Lots of electronics have become more reliable by being fully integrated units. I prefer a durable phone to a repairable phone that needs constant replacements.
Is that actually true? I have a 20 year old TV and a projector that still work, and I would be very surprised if my current one will last that long.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right to repair is not about making devices more repairable but about enabling us to buy parts and service from third parties outside the manufacturers. Apple has begun serializing parts. You cannot take a camera from one iPhone 12 and put it into another iPhone 12 because Apple serialized the camera to the phone it shipped with. They are beyond reasonable with this kind of hostile approach to repair.
I think Apple is justifiably terrified of a 3rd party battery, installed by someone with 5 minutes of training, causing a fire and making headlines.
Last time I checked, i didnt lease the iPhone, I bought it. This is a straight up violation of property rights
we pay full price for these products, but we have no control of any sort!
If we let this continue, we will live in a world where the manufacturer of a smart bottle decides when you stop drinking, the manufacturer of a TV decides that you shouldn't be watching porn, etc.
I was re-reading (ok, actually trying to finish yet again) Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance and I think some of what Pirsig says at the beginning of the book applies here. Namely, the division between people who just want things to work and hope "somebody" else will step in when a fix is needed, and those who understand the abstraction sometimes leaks, and you need to be able to dig in and at least know how…
I had a lot of fun tearing it apart and seeing how it's made and as a longshot to fixing it myself. I think I could have fixed it myself if I had access to parts and some blocks to put it on to look underneath when it's running, but alas I don't have any of that so it's probably going to be tossed. But the nice thing is, it was always an option to spend the time to fix it. I feel like I learned something and if anything else breaks I'm more confident.
At least I learned something, enjoyed myself despite a cut finger or two, and saw all the general wear and tear in various parts which made me feel better about replacing the whole thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Worse, they cause unsatisfied customers who don't want their next phone to be an Apple.
That's a problem for Apple. Why is it a problem for consumers?
> When your stuff breaks, you should be able to fix it yourself. This concept is inherently flawed. These complex devices were built by teams of highly skilled and specialized engineers. The concept that you should be able to repair it with a screwdriver and a 6-pack is outdated. I grew up on a cattle ranch, and we had lots of tractors and equipment -- some of it over 100 years old. I rebuilt an International Farmall…
I'm pretty in favor of right-to-repair, but I came here to see if any one had good reasons for not having right-to-repair (or limiting it). Thanks for providing this alternative view point! It probably doesn't apply to phones, but the liability is an interesting question, especially for equipment with a lifetime of decades.