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

British right to repair law excludes smartphones and computers

9to5mac.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 377 posts

Re: British right to repair law excludes smartphones and computers

#321

Post by judge2020 »

porknubbins wrote: post #315
judge2020 wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An extreme example of this would be the CPU - should it be repairable as well? What if the SRAM cache needs to be replaced? Should they be forced to backtrack and make that a slotted component in the next generation of motherboards, costing performance for user repairability? Or is the list of components arbitrarily determined by some administration-appointed regulatory agency?

This is taking it to an absurd extreme though, which is not really how laws work. We would be better off with a right to repair on some sort of reasonable macro scale and letting a few court cases figure out where the line is, because its definitely not nano scale chip features.

My point is that no congresspeople would sign off on a law that would stifle innovation to such a degree. Customers should be given the tools to make better decisions regarding the repairability of products if they so choose to factor that into their purchasing decision, but if it means outright stopping purely positive improvements like faster CPUs then it's both harmful to consumers and not a law that would pass congress.

A lesser extreme is the southbridge/northbridge and how CPUs are becoming SoCs. If that fails, you pretty much have to buy a new CPU, when previously you could technically replace it if you wanted. Would have such a version of the R2R law prevented this?

Re: British right to repair law excludes smartphones and computers

#322

Post by jcrben »

porknubbins wrote: post #317
spoonjim wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

User-replaceable battery means that entire product categories like wireless earbuds e.g. Airpods cannot exist. A better solution is that the manufacturer must provide battery replacement services at a cost specified at the time of purchase and only allowed to increase at the rate of inflation.

It would take some legislative creativity but why not put in some exceptions for tiny, or waterproof products etc. There are always exceptions in the real world. I fix all my phones but am fully willing to accept that I might not be able to cleanly install a gasket like the factory and lose some protection after I open it.

Creating an agency to flexibly interpret the laws thru regulations is the typical solution for legislative creativity.

Re: British right to repair law excludes smartphones and computers

#323

Post by Spivak »

fsflover wrote: post #249
heavyset_go wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stallman[1] and others[2] wrote about TPMs nearly 15 years ago, and the former revisited the topic in 2015. Trusted Platform Modules can be used enforce app DRM, ensuring that only "approved" apps are able to run on a system. That's already the reality for iPhones and iPads. We see desktops converging on this reality with systems like Apple's M1 which won't run unsigned binaries at all, and makes it difficult to near…

TPM can be based on free software and controlled by the user: https://puri.sm/posts/purism-integrates-heads-security-firmw... .

Yes but that isn’t the main point. When combined with a non-free OS TPMs become a tool used against the user to lock them out of their own system.

Re: British right to repair law excludes smartphones and computers

#324

Post by ThrowawayR2 »

sunshineforever wrote: post #290
LeifCarrotson wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, even if this is not the optimal response to the issue it's at least a popular concern to cite. Our ubiquitous radio devices only work because the invisible commons that is the radio spectrum noise floor is aggressively and totally managed. Intentional emitters can only be sold after testing to ensure that their output is within regulated power levels and frequencies. It is trivial for an end user with a high-powe…

I own a radio that I can turn to an illegal transmit power and has the ability to transmit on many forbidden channels... But I don't do it. Simple.

Yet people frequently aim laser pointers at aircraft.

If it ever seeped into the public consciousness how easy it is to disrupt RF communications, you can bet your callsign that some group of clowns would start doing it for their own amusement.

Re: British right to repair law excludes smartphones and computers

#325

Post by R0b0t1 »

Silhouette wrote: post #320
R0b0t1 wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People do this all the time with routers. The FCC has been trying to require firmware signing but it has been pushed off for now because there is very little demonstrable harm. I can go buy a bunch of passives off of ebay and make a noisy oscillator that will kill everything for a couple blocks but nobody seems to do it.

I have seen the "very little demonstrable harm" you mentioned with my own eyes in real time. It was little more than serendipity that saved lives that day. If someone did do what you described then IMHO they would be recklessly endangering the lives of others and should be treated accordingly.

This isn't a tenable argument for two reasons:

1. How far off the bell curve do we need to go? Do we trade all rights to do anything for diminishing returns in safety?

2. These modifications are happening right now. Bad instances are usually caught by EMS system tests or by people reporting gaps in cell coverage, etc, and are generally purpose build jammers. There are not many instances of frequency overlap. For most goods, especially consumer telecommunications equipment, other bands are protected by the fact the equipment is given a specific range to operate in anyway.

Re: British right to repair law excludes smartphones and computers

#326

Post by h4waii »

MrStonedOne wrote: post #261
samatman wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

User-replaceable has nothing whatsoever to do with right to repair. Zero, zip, nada. A right to repair law might mandate that any device with a battery also have the battery sold, by the manufacturer, for a reasonable period of time. That gives you a practical right to repair the device by replacing the battery, and it's well-defined. "User replaceable" is not well defined. Does it mean you need to be able to do this…

User replaceable means you can replace it during warranty and have the OEM repair/replace it if you broke anything while replacing it.

Um, user replaceable means just that -- the user can replace it, nothing of warranty and nothing about an OEM replacing if you broke something while replacing it.

Re: British right to repair law excludes smartphones and computers

#327

Post by SilverRed »

LeoPanthera wrote: post #145
ShaneMcGowan wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trying to find a good non smart tv is impossible now, I want dumb tv and dumb fridge

It's expensive, but certainly not impossible. What you are looking for is a "commercial monitor". https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/Flat-Panel-Displays/ci/16...

I just put my desk in front of the couch and use the big PC monitor as a TV.

Re: British right to repair law excludes smartphones and computers

#328

Post by meshaneian »

judge2020 wrote: post #321
porknubbins wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is taking it to an absurd extreme though, which is not really how laws work. We would be better off with a right to repair on some sort of reasonable macro scale and letting a few court cases figure out where the line is, because its definitely not nano scale chip features.

My point is that no congresspeople would sign off on a law that would stifle innovation to such a degree. Customers should be given the tools to make better decisions regarding the repairability of products if they so choose to factor that into their purchasing decision, but if it means outright stopping purely positive improvements like faster CPUs then it's both harmful to consumers and not a law that would pass co…

A reasonable compromise would probably be to require that discrete parts be available for sale, hopefully with some reasonable price standard, not requiring that devices be designed to have more parts. If it's economical for the manufacturer to move to a SoC, fine. They should at least let people buy them. Any R2R law should incentivizes manufacturers not to make disposable unrepairable products, because business is about making money, generally opposed to acting responsibly in the best interests of the public and the world. Again, opinion.

Re: British right to repair law excludes smartphones and computers

#330

Post by retox »

spoonjim wrote: post #258
bluescrn wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But there's not much point having the right to repair if products are designed to be non-repairable and spare parts are unavailable. A battery is a consumable and should be user-replaceable. It might be a bit fiddly, with tiny screws and fragile connectors, but shouldn't require heat guns and chemicals to remove adhesives... (And if we're about to replace billions of vehicles with EVs, perhaps consuming the entire pl…

User-replaceable battery means that entire product categories like wireless earbuds e.g. Airpods cannot exist. A better solution is that the manufacturer must provide battery replacement services at a cost specified at the time of purchase and only allowed to increase at the rate of inflation.

Specify a minimum 'size' of battery that must be replaceable. Size might be physical dimensions but I have don't know enough to specify a meaningful metric.
Post reply on HN