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

231–240 of 566 posts

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

#231

Post by emkoemko »

shoto_io wrote: post #223
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…

I don’t know why we shouldn’t let the market handle this. If people want everything to be repairable then why isn’t there a phone which solve that issue? Maybe people don’t care that much after all.

i not sure what your talking about... people get their phones fixed all the time, its just the companies make it very difficult or not possible at all when you can't get access to parts, or you have companies like Apple who prevent you importing parts even if the parts are ripped out of broken devices.

Then you have Apple who lie they say you can't recover your data or repair your device, yet you go to a repair shop and you get your data back and phone fixed...

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

#232

Post by thaumasiotes »

reaperducer wrote: post #193
usaphp wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see a good intention behind it, but it only works only if only honest people and companies exist. It’s not the case in real world. What would prevent a competitor simply copying the whole product and offering a cheaper price because they didn’t have to invest in R&D, and those engineers who spent many years working on a finished schematics will be out of job because the company won’t be able to make a living sellin…

What would prevent a competitor simply copying the whole product and offering a cheaper price Whatever it was that kept this from happening from the advent of electronics up to the invention of the smartphone.

This isn't a totally unreasonable position to take, but in some cases "whatever it was that kept this from happening before" really is nothing more than "nobody had thought of it yet".

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

#233

Post by datameta »

alwaysdoit wrote: post #217
OrwellianChild wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your approach will always be a valid choice, for those who want it, and companies will be happy to provide that device-as-a-service model. R2R is just seeking to preserve the practical access to repairability for those who want to service their own devices.

No it's not, it's looking to enshrine that standard by law for everyone. Nothing is stopping consumers from demanding phones that are self-serviceable, they just simply aren't willing to accept the tradeoffs involved (larger size, worse thermals, higher price, etc). If you disagree, there's an unserved market segment wide open for you!

Let's set aside software RTR, which at first glance I believe has no increased costs associated (besides a decreased profit margin from lack of shortened support windows and a locked-down ecosystem).

Could you expand on the specifics of what changes RTR would necessitate the hardware to have? Let's say beyond the fact that a non-reversible bond/connector would otherwise be the cheapest option (saving perhaps fractions of pennies on the BOM).

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

#234

Post by anoncake »

35fbe7d3d5b9 wrote: post #203
alexvoda wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Electronics used to come with full schematics as part of the documentation. As an example, this (1) is how the manual looks for a ~1970-1974 stereo record player I have. You have diagrams of the boards and lists of parts as in individual caps, etc. We should strive to move in that direction, not away from it. Permanently locked bootloaders, DRM for componets, etc. are a move in the oposite direction. To move the over…

> We should demand that any device and any component in any device be second source-able Devices aren't built around discrete components anymore. That ship has sailed, we waved goodbye, partied on the dock, and took an Uber home. Now we're nursing the hangover. But hey, our phones are now marginally thinner than last year's phones, so that might be worth something. I don't see how we get back, considering the market…

> it'd rather treat devices as things that we lease for a low cost from a vertically-integrated company.

It's weird how you defend Corporations' private property while apparently disliking the idea of personal property.

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

#235

Post by rapht »

qzw wrote: post #13
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…

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.

Planned obsolescence != suboptimal life expectancy

On the left hand, you make design choices with the goal of limiting the life expectancy of the product, and on the right hand, you just don't prioritise life expectancy over other considerations when making said choices.

Of course the line is thin and the complexity of design trade-offs in all directions makes it pretty hard to pinpoint where evil actually happened... which is why the "right to repair" is so complicated in terms of hardware.

Software though is another matter: no-one can claim it's "too difficult" or "too costly" to provide users with the information that will allow them to use their device with the software they want.

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

#236

Post by quotemstr »

andrepd wrote: post #150
quotemstr wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Make -> consume -> put in landfill is not a sustainable process.

Yes it is. In the distant future, we can mine landfills for raw materials.

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

#237

Post by jolux »

nousermane wrote: post #218
35fbe7d3d5b9 wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We should demand that any device and any component in any device be second source-able Devices aren't built around discrete components anymore. That ship has sailed, we waved goodbye, partied on the dock, and took an Uber home. Now we're nursing the hangover. But hey, our phones are now marginally thinner than last year's phones, so that might be worth something. I don't see how we get back, considering the market…

You can choose to forgo owning stuff personally, sure. But that is not everybody's preference. And please don't pretend that "devices aren't built around discrete components anymore". There are plenty of discrete components in a modern phone/laptop/roomba/whatever, that could be replaceable/upgradable by advanced user or entry-level technician, but are not: - battery - screen - storage - RAM - list goes on and on...

I believe the GP was talking about discrete circuitry vs integrated circuits, not so much supporting peripherals.

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

#238

Post by anonymousiam »

ChrisLomont wrote: post #209
alexvoda wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Electronics used to come with full schematics as part of the documentation. As an example, this (1) is how the manual looks for a ~1970-1974 stereo record player I have. You have diagrams of the boards and lists of parts as in individual caps, etc. We should strive to move in that direction, not away from it. Permanently locked bootloaders, DRM for componets, etc. are a move in the oposite direction. To move the over…

>Electronics used to come with full schematics as part of the documentation. Nearly every electronic device I bought in the 1970s did not have included schematics. TI-55, Pong console, digital watches, Speak'n'Spell, transistor radios, Mattell football and baseball handhelds, Simon... and on and on. Nearly everything then was also not easily repairable, and certainly not by an average consumer.

Open up that old transistor radio and you will usually find a tiny printed schematic diagram affixed to the inside of the removable cover.

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

#239

Post by _underfl0w_ »

35fbe7d3d5b9 wrote: post #230
OrwellianChild wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your approach will always be a valid choice, for those who want it, and companies will be happy to provide that device-as-a-service model. R2R is just seeking to preserve the practical access to repairability for those who want to service their own devices.

> Your approach will always be a valid choice, for those who want it This isn't "my approach" – it's the approach that the vast majority of purchasers prefer. And pining for the good ol' days of technical datasheets doesn't help everybody who can't start their cars without the successful interaction of nearly a hundred proprietary microcontrollers running proprietary code speaking over a high-speed data bus. And here…

Do you have a source to cite for "the approach that the vast majority of purchasers prefer"?

That seems pretty speculative. The market can be manipulated or directed by more than simply consumer choice, e.g. by business incentives of product manufacturers.

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

#240

Post by 35fbe7d3d5b9 »

anoncake wrote: post #234
35fbe7d3d5b9 wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We should demand that any device and any component in any device be second source-able Devices aren't built around discrete components anymore. That ship has sailed, we waved goodbye, partied on the dock, and took an Uber home. Now we're nursing the hangover. But hey, our phones are now marginally thinner than last year's phones, so that might be worth something. I don't see how we get back, considering the market…

> it'd rather treat devices as things that we lease for a low cost from a vertically-integrated company. It's weird how you defend Corporations' private property while apparently disliking the idea of personal property.

It's weird how you read me describing the decisions of the market and attribute them to my opinion/preferences.
Post reply on HN