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

141–150 of 199 posts

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

#141

Post by WarmWash »

wolvoleo wrote: post #123
WarmWash wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

We shouldn't really want a silicon valley. See how much trouble the US has trying to get meta to stop abusive practices to minors. Not having a silicon valley is a good thing.

The US isn't totally dependant on foreign states to have a modern economy.

Delete the US and China and all Europe has left is 6 weeks vacation.

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

#143

Post by slopinthebag »

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…

> regulation is good so long as it is backed up by even handed, robust, transparent, quick and effective sanctions

Source for this claim? How can you say regulation is good without even defining what the regulation is? Or do you just believe that all regulation no matter what is always good?

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

#144

Post by rfrey »

WarmWash wrote: post #117
8note wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this is the first time ive heard the europeans indicted over not wanting ai child porn, and that the US is better than Europe for trying to tackle it privacy rights, standardization of cables, and monopoly busting are also pretty good things. the real question is why americans havent pushed back against their new feudal lords to carve out the same rights they did against the old ones

Might as well ban computers then, no?

Child porn is an unavoidable consequence of having computers? Is that what you meant to say? I doubt it but can't find another reading of your comment.

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

#145

Post by Frieren »

maccard wrote: post #84
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…

> Amazon...

The company that looks like a medieval food shop with meat warming in the sun and a big sign that says "caveat emptor" and manned by a slave with very dirty hands. The fact that it still operates in the EU is prove that more tough punishments are needed for corporations that push fraud, dangerous products, abuse of monopolistic position, etc. Amazon in a nutshell.

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

#146

Post by waiwai933 »

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

And if we go to Footnote 5 of the campaign's press release (https://repair.eu/news/one-year-into-eu-ecodesign-rules-80-o...):

> Sometimes, this situation is slyly camouflaged: Ulefone information sheets list a link that looks genuine (https://www.ulefone.com/pages/support-centers), but if you click the ‘parts store button’ on that page, it takes you to Aliexpress. When ordering parts from non-EU web stores, you as a consumer would be the importer and as such, responsible for paying import duties as well as ensuring compliance with all regulations.

But if you actually click through to that page, it is very specifically _their_ AliExpress store, not just any old random page on AliExpress. It's not clear to me that that's actually non-compliant with the Ecodesign regulation, even if it's not ideal that the consumer is the importer of record.

EDIT: Actually, on reflection, the importer thing might be more meaningful than I first thought. While the Regulation doesn't say so explicitly, it must mean that the spare parts be available for sale in the Union, and if the consumer is acting as the importer, then the parts are potentially not on sale in the Union. But the fact it is the manufacturer's store on a marketplace and not the manufacturer's branded subdomain is as far as I can see, neither here nor there.

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

#147

Post by sandworm101 »

benrutter wrote: post #83
s_dev wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 simil…

>> labeling of a similar kind to IFixit's repair-ability

Because the public generally does not care one iota about repairability. Phones are more robust these days than ever. A fatal flaw like a screen break occures on the order of years. People just assume that, if something bad does happen, the phone will be out of date and/or no longer getting updates anyway. Many also get thier phones as part of a service plan and so dont even view them as an expense.

Look at desktop PCs. Infinitely repairable. But 90% of people will just buy a new one the moment anything significant fails.

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

#148

Post by gmueckl »

mschuster91 wrote: post #139
gmueckl wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No plumber I know is able to deal with more than a thousand different clients in eight years. This is so absolutely unrealistic it's laughable.

Repeat customers, certainly, there's only so many of them you can have. I'm talking about small shops with 5-10 people heading out to service calls, and a lot of these is "throwaway" customers that need a water faucet changed or whatnot. At least here in Germany, in most rental contracts the responsibilities are split between landlord and renter, with the landlord being responsible for the heating, the water mains an…

I know all of that. Still, I can't make the overall numbers for Germany work out in a way that gets to a customer base of any scale for plumbers.

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

#149

Post by thrwl007748 »

gmueckl wrote: post #61
mschuster91 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Real examples of organisations I have come across who have to comply with GDPR include a local community theatre, a parish church etc. They are keep fairly simple information, and not exchanging it with anyone, but they still have to put effort into ensuring compliance. Yeah, and that is precisely where you want something like the GDPR to be as well! Large corporations are one thing, they have compliance department…

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…

If you can't answer the oh so complicated and nasty questions you raised, you have no business fucking around with people's personal data and it's a good thing if your business dies (would be even better if you get a slap in the neck and financially hurt for a bit - but not so much that your business fails - and you use the punishment as an impulse to rethink your ways and do better in the future. But how likely is that, given bone-headed positions like yours?!)

"I don't want to deal with it" is relatable and human - and one of the main reasons why potentially dangerous things are / have to be regulated.

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

#150

Post by thrwl007748 »

gmueckl wrote: post #76
GJim wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nobody who wants to bootstrap a business wants to deal with any of this. It's an enormous time sink I doubt anybody wants to deal with fire safety inspections either. Though I'm quite sure you will change your mind when your personal data gets hacked or your office burns down.

Some of my personal data has leaked. Some of it has to be public because of some laws. Fire safety is less onerous and less complex.

Have you ever been the responsible person for a public building, a big concert or anything of that ilk? Suuuuure, fire and work safety are easy peasy, uncomplicated and totally trivial compared to the GDPR. And the laws and regulations involved are so incredibly brief, well-written and stay consistent over a long time... o_O /s
Post reply on HN