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

It's your device, you should be able to repair it

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 566 posts

Re: It's your device, you should be able to repair it

#91

Post by KozmoNau7 »

zepto wrote: post #48
qzw wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn’t the underlying issue planned obsolescence as a business model? It’s anti-consumer and anti-environment, and maybe we shouldn’t incentivize it as a planet.

The problem is that planned obsolescence is not in fact everyone’s business model. Apple’s penetration into the US market is not because the iPhone matches Android in terms of sales, it’s because iPhones last longer and get handed down or resold. Apple literally continues to sell years old devices. That isn’t planned obsolescence. A really simple step in the right direction would be mandated labeling showing how many…

It is planned obsolescence, because at some point I am artificially prevented from installing and running software and/or security updates. This is done by Apple only providing updates up to a certain point, and then keeping the platform locked down, while no longer providing updates.

Any closed platform that becomes unsupported and stays locked down is made artificially obsolete.

I can buy an original IBM PC, write my own software and run it with no limitations, despite it being an unsupported platform for several decades. See the famous 8088 MPH demo for an example of how much can still be done on an ancient platform, way beyond what was considered possible in its heyday. I can even write my own OS and run that. Remember that Linux was originally written by Linus Torvalds because there was no freely available Unix-like on x86, so he decided to write his own.

I can't do that with an original iPhone. You can jailbreak it, but that's not a risk-free process and it still doesn't let you install your own OS or give you direct access to the hardware.

Once a device no longer receives updates or official support, it should be opened for hobbyists to experiment with.

Re: It's your device, you should be able to repair it

#92

Post by tims33 »

LegitShady wrote: post #6
tims33 wrote: post #3

Repairability seems like a good goal for sustainability. The challenge on electronics is determining what is a reasonable and useful life for a product. Should an iPhone SE or a knockoff Android last and be repairable for a decade? My worry is the regulation will get this wrong. Moderate rules are probably the best way to start.

> Moderate rules are probably the best way to start. These changes almost never happen. Whatever change you put the first time is likely the only change that will happen. Starting off with a compromise for fear of 'getting it wrong' is the easiest way to make sure you get it wrong.

That is a fair point. I just have visions of becoming cumbersome and limiting.

Re: It's your device, you should be able to repair it

#93

Post by jack_h »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #32
scrose wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We used to have this right, but it feels like somewhere between 2010-2015, companies realized they could make more money by disallowing simple replacements. I used to make some money as a kid by buying batches of broken Iphone 3G/3GS's on ebay, replacing parts on them, and then re-selling them myself. Practically any part of that device could be replaced in less than 30 minutes with $15 worth of tools. I have a 2012M…

I draw the line at SMDs. We should go back to through-hole components — I can desolder and resolder those. Sorry, I'm not trying to mock you. Just saw an opportunity to be facetious, not facetious. And, actually, to sort of make a point: I don't buy into the idea that companies are intentionally doing this — intentionally disallowing replacement parts, although I maybe just be naive. I do in fact loathe SMDs (as a ho…

This is pretty much it. Why do we use a BGA or WLCSP rather than a DIP package? Because we can’t fit a DIP package into the form factor, and manufacturing costs are higher. Why did we glue/epoxy a few components to the board? Because the device needed to pass a drop test such that components aren’t flying off. Why did we ultrasonically weld the enclosure shut? Because we needed IP68 or above rating and the price point we were trying to hit made that the most viable.

I don’t necessarily have a problem with right to repair, but a lot of people don’t understand what goes into designing these things and attribute a lack of repairability with malfeasance rather than just the reality of manufacturing, economics, and consumer demands.

Re: It's your device, you should be able to repair it

#95

Post by criddell »

css wrote: post #2

This article moves the goalposts on what "right to repair" is several times. It generally means that manufacturers should not hide schematics from device users or disallow third party manufacturing of first party parts. However, the author states: > The law doesn't yet cover smartphones and tablets that she says are getting harder to fix. One problem is keeping older devices updated with new software. Now "right to r…

If we are going to allow software patents on the basis that software is a device, then laws affecting physical devices should apply to software as well.

Re: It's your device, you should be able to repair it

#96

Post by fsflover »

ska wrote: post #87
fsflover wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would say it is artificially shortened by design choices. It is a perfectly capable device, the harware is still fast and secure. However, I am just not allowed to fix the software, even if I have enough resources for that. This is exactly why we need free software.

> I would say it is artificially shortened by design choices. The design choices have to be made to artificially shorten the life, not for any other purpose. For example, I can make a device cheaper and use cheaper materials that wear out faster - that's not planned obsolescence. However if I include a little plastic tab that I know will break before everything else for no good reason other than making it break faste…

> the purpopse of apples closed update system was to shorten the useful life, rather than as a side effect of other product and design goals

So what is the reason to prevent updates of software after the support is over? This is a classical software anti-feature.

Re: It's your device, you should be able to repair it

#97

Post by AnthonyMouse »

css wrote: post #2

This article moves the goalposts on what "right to repair" is several times. It generally means that manufacturers should not hide schematics from device users or disallow third party manufacturing of first party parts. However, the author states: > The law doesn't yet cover smartphones and tablets that she says are getting harder to fix. One problem is keeping older devices updated with new software. Now "right to r…

> Now "right to repair" includes not only designing devices to be easier to repair but also includes legacy software support?

This is really the same thing, i.e. comprehensive hardware documentation. If the hardware is well-documented then third parties can use the documentation to create hardware drivers and continue to support e.g. Android/Linux on that hardware even after the OEM stops providing supported software.

This is true even of iPhones; there is no technical reason you shouldn't be able to port Android or any other OS to iPhone hardware given adequate hardware documentation. People are attempting to port Linux to M1 Macbooks even without adequate hardware documentation, though of course the lack of documentation is a severe impediment and the efforts consequently have yet to produce a usable port.

Re: It's your device, you should be able to repair it

#98

Post by segmondy »

II2II wrote: post #89
css wrote: post #2

This article moves the goalposts on what "right to repair" is several times. It generally means that manufacturers should not hide schematics from device users or disallow third party manufacturing of first party parts. However, the author states: > The law doesn't yet cover smartphones and tablets that she says are getting harder to fix. One problem is keeping older devices updated with new software. Now "right to r…

Perhaps the author kept moving the goalpost since we have lost so much over the years. Take that legacy software. For many technologies the software is not distinguishable from the hardware to the end user, yet faulty software could present a security risk or even pose physical danger. At the same time, vendors are dropping support for software at an accelerated rate while making it impossible to use third party fixe…

Are they also going to force "the right to sell" instead of rent? Nothing is stopping companies from renting instead of selling their products. We already see that with software, no one is trying to sell software these days, it's all subscriptions. It could happen with hardware, in which case you don't have the right to repair since it never belonged to you.

Re: It's your device, you should be able to repair it

#99

Post by joshspankit »

duped wrote: post #56
swiley wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

my interpretation is that there should be no artificial barriers. Don't hide schematics, don't lock bootloaders, don't use NDAs to prevent sharing driver code, don't prevent component manufacturers from selling to third parties.

I think requiring schematic disclosure and non exclusivity for venders of custom parts is entirely unreasonable with catastrophic first and second order effects. Particularly the latter. We want more contract manufacturing, not less of it. If you take away the ability of companies to negotiate reasonable deals with their venders, they'll just buy them out and vertically integrate.

How about forcing disclosure only for products that are no longer supported by the manufacturer? Not ideal from a repair standpoint, but removes (imo) the argument about the first and second order effects.

Re: It's your device, you should be able to repair it

#100

Post by rocqua »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #52
david_allison wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fairphone[0] is a European manufacturer which does this (modular replaceable components, 10/10 on iFixit and usable by non-techies). In my experience it's the annual release cycle of Android coupled with the lack of OS updates by manufacturers which contributes to e-waste, closely followed by the lack of battery replaceability. My first smartphone (OnePlus One - 2014) still has the specs to be a perfectly usable phon…

Can anyone enlighten me about 5G? To me it seems to be absolutely nothing more than a marketing tool meant to sell a new generation of phones and phone plans. The fact that it is pushed so fervently just sets of red flags galore for me. 4G is plenty fast and works well for me. I see nothing gained for my phone by going from 100Mbps to 1Gbps(?). Nothing. But its pushed like the second coming of Christ.

Old comment of mine:

Generally there is said to be 3 parts to 5G. The first is eMBB: Enhanced Mobile Broadband. In other words faster mobile internet. This is where most operators start.

The second is URLLC: Ultra-Reliable Low Latency Communications. This is mainly aimed at using 5G for things like self-driving cars. But also things like long distance remote control. This is where people see potential for innovation without being clear what the exact innovation will be.

The third is mMTC: Massive Machine Type Communications. This is meant for IOT but also for factory control. The IOT thing is mostly allowing extra low battery useage, low speed, cheap connnectivity. The factory control thing is about getting the advantages of 5G (and e.g. URLLC) and allowing a factory to quickly set up their own private 5G network.

This is on the consumer facing side. On the operator facing side, infrastructure is moving more towards virtualization and decoupling. Trying to make it easier to use multiple vendors, and stop requiring custom made hardware. And in general, moving towards commodity hardware and something closer to 'infrastructure as code'.

This also helps roaming and virtual operators (for e.g. the factory control). It also helps a bit with the ultra low latency part by decentralizing the routing part and moving it closer to the devices.

So "what is 5G gonna do for me" is mostly the 'faster internet'. But the idea is that it will enable widespread innovation that you can later use. With some luck (governments are thinking) being ahead in deploying 5G might also help boost your economy by boosting innovation.

Post reply on HN