It's your device, you should be able to repair it • Hacker News Board

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

#301

Post by ABeeSea » Fri, Apr 30, 2021, 7:24 PM UTC

alexvoda wrote: post #165

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…

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…

One electronic device from the 70s doesn’t support the statement “Electronics used to come with full schematics as part of the documentation.”

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

#302

Post by jbm » Fri, Apr 30, 2021, 7:25 PM UTC

scrose wrote: post #23

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.

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 have a mid-year 2012 MBP. The battery was glued in place and it is generally a PITA to repair.

I believe the generation before was the last one that was repairable.

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

#303

Post by arrozconcosas » Fri, Apr 30, 2021, 7:26 PM UTC

Won't repairable phones be bulkier? I would think its hard to be able to have as compact / integrated / low-toleranced of a design if you make more exposed screws, clips and replaceable seals etc.

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

#304

Post by thereddaikon » Fri, Apr 30, 2021, 7:26 PM UTC

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.

Remember, its reduce, reuse, and recycle in that order for a reason.

Companies like Apple and Microsoft love to claim they are green because they put money into recycling old hardware. Except their business model for hardware revolves entirely around Increasing consumption and not reducing it.

Its cheaper and better for the environment to maintain electronics than it is to replace them every few years and recycle them. Recycling is far from 100%, especially with electronics. Its not like steel or aluminum where you can just toss scrap into a crucible and get pure ingots on the other end ready to be worked into something useful.

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

#305

Post by TeMPOraL » Fri, Apr 30, 2021, 7:26 PM UTC

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!

> Nothing is stopping consumers from demanding phones that are self-serviceable

It's not like anyone asked the consumers. Nor were the options put on the market, for the buyers to vote on them with their wallets. The conclusions are assumed in advance by the companies. Meanwhile, consumers choose from what's actually available on the market - not from the space of all possible products.

> they just simply aren't willing to accept the tradeoffs involved (larger size, worse thermals, higher price, etc).

No customer can truly evaluate the tradeoffs involved. For starters, necessary information isn't publicly available. Companies don't publish reports from their product teams that describe the trade-off space they're working on. Would a user-replaceable battery make the phone thicker? How much? Does the glue actually helps with thermals? What's the price difference? Nobody knows, outside the people involved in these decisions.

Secondly, marketers run interference. Maybe a Joe would pay $100 extra for a fully repairable phone, so that Jane could fix it for him when he unavoidably breaks it in six months. Maybe an environmentally conscious Carol would go for one with user-replaceable battery, because she can only afford a cheaper, mostly integrated device. But they won't, because those issues aren't even on a typical person's radar. Instead, the marketing focuses on vague appeal to emotions, misrepresented specs, outright lies, and bait-and-switch "value-add" services. Most people who know better than to fall for such nonsense will just look at the one clear indicator - price.

The point is: when you have a system connected to a bunch of input signals, you can't say that a particular signal doesn't affect the system, if half of the other inputs are flooded with noise that's 20dB higher than any legit signal would be. You first need to shut off the noise!

> If you disagree, there's an unserved market segment wide open for you!

Not for me. There are too many capital barriers to entry around designing and manufacturing high-end electronics. You can't just start a business in this space and hope to offer a comparable price to established magnitudes.

Now if an established company like Samsung or Apple dared to try this, then we'd know. Maybe it would turn out there's no market for repairable smartphones. But I haven't seen anybody giving it a shot in a meaningful way.

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

#306

Post by DaniloDias » Fri, Apr 30, 2021, 7:27 PM UTC

I’m 20 years into my career and my perspective on this topic has changed from being a supporter of RTR to being generally tepid.

Most IoT is shit because they compete on very thin margins. This presents a problem for folks who consider both security and customer ownership rights- what is the more important priority? Right to repair, or Authenticity of software?

1.) I currently index on authenticity of software. It should not be easy for someone to augment your firmware with spying ability.

2) there is a plentiful ecosystem of inexpensive suppliers for homebrew types that want to build their own purpose built devices. This wasn’t the case historically. In the past, I felt like you didn’t have an economical alternative path. Now you do, so why is it so important to demand the ability to Jerry rig someone else’s appliance?

3) I don’t think RTR is compatible with secure boot, antirollback, etc.

I do believe in RTR for laptops, John deer tractors and cars. But I find it a waste of time for inexpensive iot gear. Am I alone? Would appreciate others perspective.

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

#307

Post by JoshTko » Fri, Apr 30, 2021, 7:27 PM UTC

fsh wrote: post #198

JoshTko wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The trend for lack of reparability in smartphones is because of consumer preferences. Consumers are consistently choosing devices that are smaller, lighter, higher durability, waterproof, cheaper etc. vs. devices that are more repairable that do not have those features.

Where does this crazy idea come from that you have to glue shut a device to make it waterproof? A rubber gasket and a few screws work just as well without compromising repairability. Wristwatches have been constructed like this for centuries, while being a lot smaller and lighter than any smartphone. Maybe it would slightly increase the BOM and assembly cost, but considering that it fits in the budget of a 30€ Casio,…

Look at this comparison. Fairphone has a smaller screen but is larger, heavier, lower quality screen, and is not dust/waterpoof, and costs double compared with the Galaxy S8. Fairphone only matches or loses on all other specs.

https://versus.com/en/fairphone-3-vs-samsung-galaxy-s8

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

#308

Post by stjohnswarts » Fri, Apr 30, 2021, 7:28 PM UTC

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…

It's clearly written by an author who isn't very technically or legally savvy, however it gets the point across to the general public about the importance. We can let the pros determine the goalposts but clearly what we're doing now and letting manufacturers get away with is insufficient.

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

#309

Post by OrwellianChild » Fri, Apr 30, 2021, 7:29 PM UTC

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…

All I'm saying is that R2R in no way changes the products that are available to you if you want product-as-a-service. You can still take your phone to the Genius Bar or lease it from a carrier. It just guarantees that there are also options for those who want to fix their own devices.

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

#310

Post by operator-name » Fri, Apr 30, 2021, 7:29 PM UTC

LexGray wrote: post #279

datameta wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fraction…

Mandated right repair would raise weight for battery containers and latches, higher failure as connections would not be soldered in place and hinges and latches may fail, less water resistance as seals may get bumped loose, easier access for hardware hacks for bad actors, more potential consumer injury device damage during repair attempts, and more likely fire scenarios in planes and public areas from incorrectly ins…

The right to repair doesn't mandate any of that - you could have a product that has glued internal batteries and internal seals yet still release the schematics and allow your suppliers to sell the components to consumers.

Just look at motor vehicles - people have the right to change their own brake pads yet or even engines! This is arguably way more dangerous than a badly repaired small electronic device!