Microsoft and Apple wage war on gadget right-to-repair laws

>I am, however, against the idea of companies being forced to design products around being easily repairable

I haven't heard anyone actually push for this. I've just heard people ask for access to information and the ability to buy parts.

There’s almost infinite volume underground and an huge amount of unlivable space (like deserts) to place the minuscule amount of trash that we produce.

> must be forced to make parts and schematics available to any independent repair shop, just like car makers have to do

The only reason this has been possible for car makers until now is because the technology to stop it didn’t exist. But it does now, and car makers are definitely moving in the direction of “lock down”. You already can’t replace wireless key fobs, and entertainment head units are locked down. Repair manuals are locked behind a monthly subscription web site, and the third-parties who used to publish their manuals are giving up. John Deere is infamous for taking it to the next level with farm equipment. The way things are going in the auto industry, as soon as it’s possible to technically enforce the use of “genuine” crank shafts and head gaskets, they will not hesitate to do so.

"Computer and device makers must be forced to make parts and schematics available to any independent repair shop, just like car makers have to do."

I believe it's only Massachusetts that forces Car makers to share repair information to independant shops?

(We need a broad federal Right to Repair law.)

I'm an Independent Watchmaker and 99.99% of watch companies stopped selling parts to us a few years ago. Rolex was quite a bully. They made guys go out and buy $30 grand worth of equipment if they wanted to have access to parts/info. (Rolex owned many of the equipment manufactures). They then turned around and cut their parts accounts.

I've heard all about the danger of repairing your own vechicle/devices. It makes no sence. Companies are not liable if the devise has been altered, or repaired, by anyone other than them? Right? The second a company thinks they might possibly be liable for a product, they send out investigators hoping they could blame a third party repair?

Consumers just want a choice to bring their broken vechicle/device to a guy who charges a reasonable amount to repair.

They are tired of no options other than tossing it, or having it repaired at Factory prices. My local auto dealerships are charging $270/hr for out of warranty work. This was a few years ago. I have older vechicles, so I'm lucky for now. I've actually gone to automotive school, and the complexity of these newer cars scares me. To anyone looking to buy a new car, ask about parts, and service after the warranty end. Oh yea, avoid the independant auto shop that works on everything in most cases. These new vechicles have deep trouble codes, that only expensive dealership scanners can access. Your OBD2 scanner will not get to the deep layers of the multiple computers in modern vechicles. Nothing will change until the consumer says no. I'm starting to preach sorry. It just bothers me on so many levels. I guess I got it from my dad?

I was with him when he bought his new '98 Dodge Dakota. He told the salesman, "I need the Service Manual too". Back then access to repair information was expected. If anyone told him otherwise, he would never have bought the truck. He ended up giving it to me, and I have been working on it ever since. I couldn't imagine buying a new car without a Service Manual. I was looking at new cars a few years ago for my mom, and asked the sales guy about Service Manuals. He laughed. He said even Independant shop owners bring their cars to us. I couldn't believe customers happily sipping Starbucks coffee, in the fancy lounge, with the shop rate sign right behind them "$270.00/hr". I left thinking the world has changed. (I have no clue to shop rates as of 2021. I kinda don't want to know.)

Why are companies doing this? I think we all know. Some fresh faced MBA realized, "We will get them coming, and going.". They call it Vertical Integration, or greed? There is a lot of case law that protects companies though. It's going to be a fight.

I'm going from memory here, so don't quote me. In the 70's a group of watch owners wanted to buy parts for their broken watches. The government thought it was a fair request. They used the Sherman Anti-trust Act to fight the watch companies, mainly Swiss companies. It was kinda settled, and the judge sided with the watch companies. They were under no obligation to supply part to consumers. They still provided parts to Watch Repaiers for awhile though. I believe all case law favors the manufacturers. If any lawyer reads this could you explain it to me?)

I believe that's a thinly veiled criticism directed at Apple. Even Apple tries to optimize for cost and what I would label aesthetic. You'd have to convince me that thinness is worse for the environment than having a repairable product that has the extra packaging and delivery wastage of something that is 2x the bulk and weight so that we can make it last a few more years potentially. Again, this isn't a binary problem. Even if we had an "eco-friendly" computer, it doesn't teleport to its destination. Your argument is equivalent to banning all cars because human death is unacceptable. Cars give more than they take, that's why we tolerate the death statistics.