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

Smartphone makers don't bother to comply with EU repairability requirements

theregister.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 208 posts

Re: Smartphone makers don't bother to comply with EU repairability requirements

#81

Post by gmueckl »

mschuster91 wrote: post #63
gmueckl wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, wait until you are at the receiving end. It can get nasty pretty quickly. What does each one of your systems store exactly? Do they allow configuration of reasonable data retention policies for PII? What do your systems log? How do you make sure that only the minimum amount of PII (including user IP addresses) is logged and that the covered logs are destroyed at the end of a reasonable retention period? How do…

> Nobody who wants to bootstrap a business wants to deal with any of this. It's an enormous time sink. Indeed but it forces you to answer these questions and to think about them during the development process as well, maybe even enough to write decent unit and regression tests for anything authentication/authorization related before some security "researcher" siccs Claude Code or whatever on your API and pwns it.

You assume that the business is about developing software and will have a public facing API.

That's a very narrow perspective. The vast majority of businesses aren't this. Even a plumber who types up offers and invoices on a computer is subject to all of this mess.

Re: Smartphone makers don't bother to comply with EU repairability requirements

#82

Post by Parodper »

jatora wrote: post #34
crote wrote: post #7

Contrary to popular belief, the EU is not very fast when it comes to enforcement on requirements like these. We already saw this with the ePrivacy Directive and GDPR: those scary hundreds-of-millions-of-euros fines are only handed out after ongoing and deliberate violation, where you've already received plenty of warnings and smaller fines. 18% compliance after one year with zero enforcement is not great, but it's al…

[flagged]

> EU anti-AI laws

God I wish.

Re: Smartphone makers don't bother to comply with EU repairability requirements

#83

Post by benrutter »

s_dev wrote: post #16
KaiserPro wrote: post #4

As its the EU and regulation, its time to trott out your hobby horse. So let me trot out mine: regulation is good so long as it is backed up by even handed, robust, transparent, quick and effective sanctions. the Online safety act is a good example of a bad law, which is enforced badly. The first big test (X producing industrial quantities of minors engaging in sexual activity) was failed. Had a small company produce…

A lot of scores on the doors are often faked defeating their purpose. Helpful but not bullet proof. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SO8KcfhJmc Old school methods like what McDonald's use, literally allow the customer to see in to the kitchen are very effective. Not always ideal for every type establishment but I've seen high end Indian restaurants even do it by having the POS at the back where you can see the kitche…

> I'm not sure how to translate this to the smartphone market though. Fairphone and LaJolla seem to do well in this regard though so back to brand reputation for a lot of this.

I'm not here with a silver bullet or anything, but I'd say the EU's energy efficiency labeling works well and has a fairly low level of being gamed/falsified.

I don't think there's any big reason why the EU couldn't enforce labeling of a similar kind to IFixit's repair-ability scoring[0] for set devices.

On a separate note, the article mentions the lousy attempts some smart phone makers are guilty of with regards to repair instructions:

> Some records even refer customers to Temu or AliExpress for spare parts and repair instructions.

There are at least a lot less smart phone manufacturers than restaurants and cafes (comparing to scores on the doors) - if the EU really wanted to, it wouldn't be a huge resource to produce clear guidance on what expectations are for smart phone spare part provision, and issue fines whenever they're violated (you might think is a bad idea, and too much regulation, but my point is just that it's at least feasible)

[0] https://www.ifixit.com/repairability/smartphone-repairabilit...

Re: Smartphone makers don't bother to comply with EU repairability requirements

#84

Post by maccard »

CorvusCrypto wrote: post #54

Enforcement can be better, but I'm gonna give grace given how recently it was imposed. It's easy to point at extreme levels of enforcement being a key part of any regulation, but I have seen the breadth of the EU's scope and what needs to be balanced. Quite often I find that nonaction against compliance violations falls into the following: - Lack of resources - Lack of real consumer impact - Awaiting legislation mean…

> but every EU member has a clear agency for consumer complaint, and I don't buy it that it is hard for consumers to report violations,

The problem is the response is toothless. I reported Amazon for a violation to ICO in February 2019, received an automated email a month later asking for a swathe of information, replied to that, and 3 months later got an update that it would be assigned a Case Officer. That was the last time I heard from them on that matter.

Meanwhile, my local council will respond to pretty much _everything_ within 24-48 hours. I’ve reported all sorts of “small” things and when it comes up naturally friends are surprised that the council did anything. They’ve never actually tried reporting the issues, and assume it’s all fruitless.

Re: Smartphone makers don't bother to comply with EU repairability requirements

#85

Post by herbst »

epihelix wrote: post #58
herbst wrote: post #12

Does it really matter this early? What I expect from this is rather that at least a few producers get more repair friendly so I as consumer have the choice again. (Writing this on my first phone without easily changeable battery, I've tried for very long) So I as my families tech guru can give the right signals to my family and in a few years we see the actual change happen. Slowly but steadily

Companies don't really care about rules per se. They care about their risk appetite, and whether the consequences of their actions create risk above that appetite level. The simple calculus is: will it cost me more to comply, or more to ignore? If a company chooses the more costly option, they are betraying their shareholders and being managed poorly. If you do not fine early and often, you are almost mandating that…

Don't get me wrong but it sounds like you are applying a foreign logic to the EU system without understanding how these things usually work here.

I personally happily followed GDPR rules, so did many others. Making it generally a better place. That wasn't because of fines but because we now had a framework to follow to make the world a safer place.

Re: Smartphone makers don't bother to comply with EU repairability requirements

#87

Post by maccard »

epihelix wrote: post #58
herbst wrote: post #12

Does it really matter this early? What I expect from this is rather that at least a few producers get more repair friendly so I as consumer have the choice again. (Writing this on my first phone without easily changeable battery, I've tried for very long) So I as my families tech guru can give the right signals to my family and in a few years we see the actual change happen. Slowly but steadily

Companies don't really care about rules per se. They care about their risk appetite, and whether the consequences of their actions create risk above that appetite level. The simple calculus is: will it cost me more to comply, or more to ignore? If a company chooses the more costly option, they are betraying their shareholders and being managed poorly. If you do not fine early and often, you are almost mandating that…

I will say;

> will it cost me more to comply, or more to ignore?

Is an (unfortunately) American view of things. The vast majority of European businesses I’ve worked with attempt to comply with the _spirit_ of the laws, while my experience with most American companies is they try to skirt the letter of the law to do whatever the hell they want.

I’m not saying one is better, or that all companies in both places are like that. But it rings true in my experience.

Re: Smartphone makers don't bother to comply with EU repairability requirements

#88

Post by nradov »

WarmWash wrote: post #72
oblio wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hint hint to what? South Korea is a very dynamic, tech heavy country and it hasn't managed to push any software product as a market leader. The EU is bigger, but it's fractured, so functionally it's basically 2-3x South Korea in terms of "software power". And that's not enough to compete with the much larger US juggernaut. Only China has managed to hold its own by simply banning US software all together. I'm actually…

Europe had the opportunity to create a silicon valley 30 years ago. They fumbled it so badly that most euro tech talent went to the US and worked or even founded their companies there. They still have not (and likely never will) implement the general reforms needed to create fertile grounds for tech to compete with the US. If the current EU mindset existed 150 years ago, they would have banned steam engines because t…

You will actually find European HN users who will unironically say that we should have never started using fossil fuel engines at all.

Re: Smartphone makers don't bother to comply with EU repairability requirements

#89

Post by maxerickson »

heisenbit wrote: post #66

I'm wondering whether it is now time for regulators to pressure mobile phone companies to install longer life batteries. There is not really an incentive to prolong device life for manufacturers and when I look at recent progress on the car industry and utility battery side there is imho. potential.

This regulation seems to relax the rules a bit for batteries that last longer.

I wonder if it will just lead to using same size batteries more gently.

Re: Smartphone makers don't bother to comply with EU repairability requirements

#90

Post by ceejayoz »

gustavus wrote: post #77
delusional wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, Twitter frontpage should include a little counter with how much child exploitation it has facilitated today. I don't think there's a single politician in Bruxelles that wouldn't love to come down hard on X. There is no love for Elon in those circles anymore. The problem is that he's attached himself to international politics through his daddy. Trump has threatened the EU with strict sanctions if they levy any so…

[flagged]

The President of the United States is openly posting fascist shit regularly. Yesterday:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...

The image literally says "inspired by Starship Troopers". Which was inspired by fascism and Nazi uniforms in particular.

> if you want to see a real fascist regime

Is it not worth looking at how such regimes got there? Maybe as a preventative? Do we have to wait for it to go all the way to Holocausts before we go "uh oh, should've said something"?

We had our https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_Hall_Putsch a few years back, even.

Post reply on HN