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

111–120 of 566 posts

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

#111

Post by fsflover »

Koshkin wrote: post #78
ncallaway wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If company does not want to allow consumer to repair a device- it ought to provide extended warranty to the consumer for a small fee. I would modify that: If a company restricts a consumer from repairing a device (either explicitly in warranty policies, or implicitly by producing devices that are hard to repair, restricting part availability, or not having manuals available), then the company must (not should) prov…

> devices that are hard to repair Define easy? (Modern electronics, for instance, is highly integrated, full of miniature surface-mounted components etc., and so the "repair process" might as well be simply selling you a replacement for the whole thing.)

> Define easy?

See the definitions by iFixIt.

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

#112

Post by fsflover »

rocqua wrote: post #110
fsflover wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> hen the company must (not should) provide an extended warranty for all damage scenarios at cost. So would you agree on $1 million fee per customer? (which is what companies would probably ask if you made such law)

It states "at cost" so only the extra costs made for the repair

How do you independently evaluate those costs?

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

#113

Post by AdrianB1 »

quotemstr wrote: post #108
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…

Why are you surprised? This is the common pattern of tech activism: start with a kernel of a legitimate grievance, grow it into a whole crop of outrage, and harvest that outrage to make new rules that actually make everything a bit worse. Designing for repairability has costs both monetary and functional. Why should everyone have to pay these costs on the say-so of a few people whose main claim to legitimate authorit…

You are right, but then let's make it mandatory for the end user to safely recycle all the components from their devices; they should not be allowed to sale or donate old devices, but have to recycle every piece of it. The purpose? Safe disposal. If you don't want to extend the life of the devices, keep it forever or safely dispose it.

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

#114

Post by corty »

AdrianB1 wrote: post #102
corty wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The expected use time of a dishwasher is 10 years. Which is a machine with mechanical parts and a lot of wear and tear, corrosive chemicals, decaying seals, etc. A computer with fewer movable parts and a higher price should last longer. That software manufacturers don't support that notion is a problem that needs to be dealt with.

If you read again, the claim is that after a failed Windows 10 update that device ran another 7 years on Ubuntu. As Windows 10 was launched less than 7 years ago, that is a lie.

With a sufficiently generous interpretation it might have been a preview build. But then he wouldn't be entitled to complain, because of course a preview might break.

More probably you are right.

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

#115

Post by addicted »

bogwog wrote: post #18
ilogik wrote: post #8

a good video about what the right to repair is and isn't: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvVafMi0l68

This is a really good video, it lays everything out clearly and explains it well. I even threw $50 at Louis's gofundme. It's always bizarre to me to see regular people arguing against right to repair in online discussions. Literally the only parties who benefit from planned obsolescence is device manufacturers, and it happens at the customer's expense 100% of the time. Either these people are dumb, or (most likely) t…

What's also hard to understand is that right to repair is not a new concept.

The auto industry has it.

I don't think anyone can argue that the auto industry or its customers have suffered from the fact that we have an entire ecosystem built around 3rd party repair and services that often provide better, quicker, and more easily accessible support and services.

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

#116

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

antattack wrote: post #50

Given opposition to 'right to repair' from corporations, some of it on valid grounds IMO, I would be fine with the following compromise: If company does not want to provide resources needed for consumer to repair a device- it ought to provide extended warranty to the consumer for free or a small fee.

Extended warranty or updates. Past a certain date I should be able to buy future updates for a reasonable fee.

Sounds fair, it takes work to keep software updated.

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

#117

Post by merlincorey »

segmondy wrote: post #98
II2II wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is the crux of the argument to me - if I own the device, why do some companies act like I am just renting it?

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

#118

Post by quotemstr »

AdrianB1 wrote: post #113
quotemstr wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are you surprised? This is the common pattern of tech activism: start with a kernel of a legitimate grievance, grow it into a whole crop of outrage, and harvest that outrage to make new rules that actually make everything a bit worse. Designing for repairability has costs both monetary and functional. Why should everyone have to pay these costs on the say-so of a few people whose main claim to legitimate authorit…

You are right, but then let's make it mandatory for the end user to safely recycle all the components from their devices; they should not be allowed to sale or donate old devices, but have to recycle every piece of it. The purpose? Safe disposal. If you don't want to extend the life of the devices, keep it forever or safely dispose it.

Modern landfills are safe disposal sites. Recycling can be economically incentivized where it makes sense.

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

#119

Post by joshspankit »

colejohnson66 wrote: post #76
fsflover wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That isn’t planned obsolescence. Yes, it is. Even though Apple devices last longer, after the support is ended, I cannot do anything with them. I cannot update, install anything. They effectively become bricks. If this is not planned obsolescence, then what is?

Except they don’t become bricks. They still work just fine. In fact, on some more recent unsupported devices, you can still redownload apps (but only up to the latest version supporting your device). Did the Apple II become a brick when Apple stopped supporting them? The IBM PC? Why is an older iDevice a “brick”, but not BlackBerrys or Nokias?

Here’s another angle:

An iPhone 4 with the “last supported OS” is significantly slower than when it had the OS it launched with.

This is true across the board, which leads to this very convenient “they can buy used iPhones, but we don’t want them to use them, so we’ll gently guide them to new devices by making it inconvenient and annoying”

And before someone argues: Yes, much of the slowdown is because of new features, BUT Apple could simply allow users to disable most of them (such as ML-processing photos in the background, or deep-indexing file contents for spotlight. Those are not required for the phone to function as a phone).

If someone wanted to use the iPhone 3GS with the original iOS, not sync to the cloud, replace the battery every couple years, and install a firewall to prevent intrusion via known attack vectors, they could realistically have a perfectly snappy and solid experience in any future decade. Doubly so if they kept a 2.4Ghz AP when the industry is on some unknown future frequency.

However: Apple has taken many steps to prevent exactly that sort of thing, and they will continue to make as many as they can get away with.

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

#120

Post by overgard »

> 'It's your device, ...

Sadly, while that /should/ be true, I'm not sure that on any practical level it is anymore. There's about a 1000 ways the manufacturer, carrier, os developer, etc., can make your device entirely useless without you having much of any recourse, because while they can't physically take the device from you, they can stop providing you service.

Post reply on HN