111–120 of 175 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The no thanks attitude might be at odds with a healthier environment. It’s like the tragedy of the commons.
Making components user replaceable rather than soldered in requires more connectors so more waste.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No they are not. Patents are incentives. You can weigh the benefits or lack thereof and chooses to opt-in or opt-out. Regulations are a government-created burden. You can't opt out of a regulation.
If you don't pollute the rivers, then you can avoid the "regulatory burden". If you don't serve food that contains poison, then you can avoid the "regulatory burden". If you don't sell cars whose brakes fail then you can completely avoid this "regulatory burden". If you're not a predatory lender then you can avoid this "regulatory burden".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The right to repair has nothing to do with open source and it is probably best to avoid conflating it with open source. It is going to be difficult enough to pass legislation to enable the access to components and schematics, as well as to prevent the implementation of technical barriers intended to make independent repair (and modifications) illegal. The reason why we reached this abysmal state of affairs has more t…
The conflation of right to repair with other things might make the whole enterprise impossible. It's currently very difficult to claim support for something when the goalposts keep moving. I'm very much in support of companies being required to provide schematics, where reasonable. Also I see no reason why they should be able to stop manufacturers selling parts to repair shops. I don't think that forcing design choic…
"So one example of what Right to Repair is not: The European Union, I believe, was looking to mandate that Apple use USB-C instead of Lightning, because USB-C is a standard and Lightning is not a standard. I don’t want people to think that has anything to do with Right to Repair because it doesn’t; that’s completely separate. I’m not looking to tell Apple, “You need to use this type of charge port. I want you to use micro USB. I want you to use USB-C. I want you to use this.” No, what we’re saying is, regardless of what you use to charge your phone — you could use a banana to charge it — just give us access to be able to purchase that charge port so that if the charge port in the phone breaks, we can fix it for customers rather than tell them, “Your phone is now a brick.” So I think that is a good example of what Right to Repair is not: We’re not looking to say, “You need to use this port. You need to do this.” Just don’t intentionally lock people out of the ability to fix it once you’ve chosen how to design it."
-------
Right to repair has a fine handle on what is being advocated for, and it is spelled out in the legislation. I don't think people read it though. In the EU, it is different than in the US. I do not support legislation that forces design choices on modularity or using specific ports. That's EU Right to Repair, but I have no business on that since I don't live there.
US right to repair is about making things available. Use microUSB, USB-C, mini-usb, parallel port.. so long as it's made available for purchase to repair shops/users.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow, the voice of reason in the first comment? Am I really on HN? Of course, you are 100% correct. There is nothing stopping one of the big players from offering a more "repairable" product to satisfy all of the supposed demand. Remember, R2R wants to force their ideas upon _everyone_. Doesn't that mean, that there should already be a huge group of people who are willing to buy repairable devices? Instead of making n…
none of which will help, because the big companies will just buy up all the competition. and not all regulation hinders competition, anti-monopoly regulation protects competition. and so does right to repair btw, because now i can run a repair business that competes with the manufacturer in fixing their devices.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The no thanks attitude might be at odds with a healthier environment. It’s like the tragedy of the commons.
Making components user replaceable rather than soldered in requires more connectors so more waste.
We know what Wozniak would say, as he's a tinkerer from a time when computers were "human-sized" and able to be tinkered with. I think realistically the only thing we can demand is user-replaceable battery. Everything else is doomed to end up on a single chip integrated. And that chip either works, or doesn't. It's not about profit, it's about integration and miniaturization.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The implication you're making is that he is either knowingly damaging the environment, scamming vulnerable people or wasting energy without having to do anything to support that assertion. I don't have to support the assertion because I never made it, you did. You extrapolate my words to extremes by saying "The implication you're making" followed by a false dilemma of three choices based on that extrapolation. So n…
> so pure soul might be a bit of a stretch. This is exactly where you imply it.
But I do think you need to be spotless for the term "pure of soul". And no, I don't think he is "either knowingly damaging the environment, scamming vulnerable people or wasting energy". But I also don't think he has a spotless record either.
I don't like this "everything is either black or white" trend.