this topic has been beaten to death to the point that there isn't a lot to comment on anymore. But it's still a critical issue (even in 2017). so, this is me, upvoting for visibility.
also, id go so far as to say that while we should have the right to repair/hack our own devices, I think legally requiring the producer supply OEM parts is a bit of a stretch. Should I be able to fix my tractor, absolutely. But I don't know why a business would be incentivized to sell anything but the entire device.
> I think legally requiring the producer supply OEM parts is a bit of a stretch
I don't think it's a stretch at all. If they've already manufactured the parts, requiring them to sell replacement parts to customers really should be a thing. Holding them back because of shitty IP laws and strangling their ability to get things running is bad form and anti consumer
I did a ctrl+f for 'environment' and didn't see anything.
So, this is me replying to say that government regulation might be seen as good or evil depending on your point of view and the context, but I hope members from both sides would agree that the health of the environment is rarely a consideration in businesses.
Not being able to repair something sucks for the environment, because people will throw the whole thing away (like a phone), when just a small part is broken (for example, the microphone!). Sometimes an external (not-naturally-market-occuring) stimulus is required to incentivize things like repair.
I think legally requiring the producer supply OEM parts is a bit of a stretch.
It's not a stretch. This is equipment that should last a while and you should be able to get replacement parts. This isn't a single-use phone that will be thrown out and recycled.
> we should have the right to repair/hack our own devices
No people should demand the devices they buy be repairable and if enough people care that's where the market would follow. When it comes to rights I think companies should have the right to sell devices that are not user repairable. I also think consumers have the right not to be ripped off on first party repairs but that's a problem with multiple solutions e.g. audits and penalties.
The problem is businesses will start including ASICs that don't really need to be there because they can effectively make the device unrepairable to anyone on the outside.
Though I'm not sure making unrepairable equipment is a good business strategy: Once you get the reputation of gouging your customers on repairs your top line will start to sag.
Wish there was a way to do ensure the Right to Repair without throwing Apple's "Activation Lock" in the garbage.
Activation Lock greatly reduced the amount of thievery associated with Apple devices, and I think it's been a tremendous boon to -humanity- (how? by reducing the whole ecosystem of shit that grows around theft. Without Apple products, it's a less viable 'career' for the disadvantaged, and the scum who feed off them. It's like if half the grass in a field was inedible, it'd support a smaller population of buffalo or something. )
This is a specific instance of a more general question that Nebraska legislators are going to consider on Thursday: what pitfalls exist around the "right to repair" or even the "right to modify"?
Suppose a law is passed which forces my digital device manufacturer to allow me to install arbitrary firmware on my device. What could go wrong?
Well, it depends on how they implement it. If they remove signature verification during the firmware upgrade process, maybe some malicious person could change my firmware. I don't want that.
So, what they should do is give me the signing key. The design of the device doesn't need to change. We don't need to re-legalize "hacking" the digital lock. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-circumvention)
Nope, the manufacturer just needs to include a copy of each device's unique key in the box when they sell the phone.
If Activation Lock prohibits right-to-repair and right-to-modify it should be removed.
I personally encounter more frequently state when I want to repair or modify my hardware then when I get is stolen.
More over petty thiefs don't distinguish between one phone or the other. If they do, they will more likely steal iPhone, if they are even more clever and know that it is hard to crack an iPhone, then it is such minority that you can ignore them almost altogether (and they are more likely to know how to really crack it - it is not impossible).
This is a big issue for farmers. I have family who are farmers and the secret to their success is that they are mainly mechanics who fix their own equipment. If you have to rely on other people to fix your equipment your margins disappear quickly.
How many more Volkswagen emission scandals are hiding behind this ruse of patent protection. Certainly on every market we will find a proportional example, and if not then why so adamantly defend it? Surely this is just an opportunity for more companies to say to their customers: "hey guys. We are going to stand against fucking you for profit."
John Deere has gone as far as to claim that farmers don’t
own the tractors they pay hundreds of thousands of dollars
for, but instead receive a "license to operate the vehicle".
Don't most farmers finance their equipment? If the resale value is low because John Deere's policies make it difficult to use older equipment, then they won't be able to sell tractors with high profit margins because banks won't give them security. They're literally trading higher margins for more volume sales, and begging their competitors to join them to a race to the bottom.
I don't have an MBA, but that seems really short-sighted. Configuring your entire value-add chain, from R&D to sales to marketing, to focus on low-margin volume sales sounds preposterous. I mean, volume will always be meat & potatoes, but the darwinian struggle for high-margin sales is how you nurture growth.
Once the small farmer is gone John Deere will only be able to sell to huge conglomerates. Eventually those conglomerates will dabble with vertical integration and cut John Deere out of the equation all together.
Seems to me if John Deere wants to stay relevant they'd do everything they can to inflate the resale value of their tractors, and that necessarily includes sustaining a high resale value in the used equipment market.
In a world of cheap financing it's easier than ever to keep farmers buying new equipment, and more important than ever to maximize returns based on loose financing. You shouldn't need a lawyer to hold a gun to your customer's head. This obsession with maintaining control of their product after it leaves the factory seems just so epically ridiculous. And that's before we get into any of the minutiae of copyright and the uphill battle they'll face. Anything but the strictest of controls over their software will net them absolutely nothing at the end of the day except alot of pissed-off customers. It certainly won't be an impediment to Chinese knock-offs, who have very capable software engineers. Whoever is telling them that is so misinformed that I'd wonder if they were taking payments on the side from the Chinese.
I guess this is why American manufacturing is slowly dying. I mean, we're still the number one manufacturing country in the world, but despite strategies like these, not because of them.
[+] [-] wheelerwj|9 years ago|reply
also, id go so far as to say that while we should have the right to repair/hack our own devices, I think legally requiring the producer supply OEM parts is a bit of a stretch. Should I be able to fix my tractor, absolutely. But I don't know why a business would be incentivized to sell anything but the entire device.
[+] [-] AckSyn|9 years ago|reply
I don't think it's a stretch at all. If they've already manufactured the parts, requiring them to sell replacement parts to customers really should be a thing. Holding them back because of shitty IP laws and strangling their ability to get things running is bad form and anti consumer
[+] [-] hiisukun|9 years ago|reply
So, this is me replying to say that government regulation might be seen as good or evil depending on your point of view and the context, but I hope members from both sides would agree that the health of the environment is rarely a consideration in businesses.
Not being able to repair something sucks for the environment, because people will throw the whole thing away (like a phone), when just a small part is broken (for example, the microphone!). Sometimes an external (not-naturally-market-occuring) stimulus is required to incentivize things like repair.
[+] [-] omouse|9 years ago|reply
It's not a stretch. This is equipment that should last a while and you should be able to get replacement parts. This isn't a single-use phone that will be thrown out and recycled.
[+] [-] zardo|9 years ago|reply
Making it easy for customers to change the software could put you in a bad situation. Essentially, the same one VW is in, a $35,000 per vehicle fine.
[+] [-] Steko|9 years ago|reply
No people should demand the devices they buy be repairable and if enough people care that's where the market would follow. When it comes to rights I think companies should have the right to sell devices that are not user repairable. I also think consumers have the right not to be ripped off on first party repairs but that's a problem with multiple solutions e.g. audits and penalties.
[+] [-] gozur88|9 years ago|reply
Though I'm not sure making unrepairable equipment is a good business strategy: Once you get the reputation of gouging your customers on repairs your top line will start to sag.
[+] [-] mulletbum|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] droopyEyelids|9 years ago|reply
Activation Lock greatly reduced the amount of thievery associated with Apple devices, and I think it's been a tremendous boon to -humanity- (how? by reducing the whole ecosystem of shit that grows around theft. Without Apple products, it's a less viable 'career' for the disadvantaged, and the scum who feed off them. It's like if half the grass in a field was inedible, it'd support a smaller population of buffalo or something. )
https://9to5mac.com/2015/02/11/iphone-thefts/
[+] [-] daveloyall|9 years ago|reply
Suppose a law is passed which forces my digital device manufacturer to allow me to install arbitrary firmware on my device. What could go wrong?
Well, it depends on how they implement it. If they remove signature verification during the firmware upgrade process, maybe some malicious person could change my firmware. I don't want that.
So, what they should do is give me the signing key. The design of the device doesn't need to change. We don't need to re-legalize "hacking" the digital lock. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-circumvention)
Nope, the manufacturer just needs to include a copy of each device's unique key in the box when they sell the phone.
Leave the rest to the consumer.
[+] [-] prodmerc|9 years ago|reply
Being able to modify and fix your own hardware as you want is a boon to humanity.
[+] [-] krzyk|9 years ago|reply
I personally encounter more frequently state when I want to repair or modify my hardware then when I get is stolen.
More over petty thiefs don't distinguish between one phone or the other. If they do, they will more likely steal iPhone, if they are even more clever and know that it is hard to crack an iPhone, then it is such minority that you can ignore them almost altogether (and they are more likely to know how to really crack it - it is not impossible).
[+] [-] daveloyall|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jackcosgrove|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hanselot|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wahern|9 years ago|reply
I don't have an MBA, but that seems really short-sighted. Configuring your entire value-add chain, from R&D to sales to marketing, to focus on low-margin volume sales sounds preposterous. I mean, volume will always be meat & potatoes, but the darwinian struggle for high-margin sales is how you nurture growth.
Once the small farmer is gone John Deere will only be able to sell to huge conglomerates. Eventually those conglomerates will dabble with vertical integration and cut John Deere out of the equation all together.
Seems to me if John Deere wants to stay relevant they'd do everything they can to inflate the resale value of their tractors, and that necessarily includes sustaining a high resale value in the used equipment market.
In a world of cheap financing it's easier than ever to keep farmers buying new equipment, and more important than ever to maximize returns based on loose financing. You shouldn't need a lawyer to hold a gun to your customer's head. This obsession with maintaining control of their product after it leaves the factory seems just so epically ridiculous. And that's before we get into any of the minutiae of copyright and the uphill battle they'll face. Anything but the strictest of controls over their software will net them absolutely nothing at the end of the day except alot of pissed-off customers. It certainly won't be an impediment to Chinese knock-offs, who have very capable software engineers. Whoever is telling them that is so misinformed that I'd wonder if they were taking payments on the side from the Chinese.
I guess this is why American manufacturing is slowly dying. I mean, we're still the number one manufacturing country in the world, but despite strategies like these, not because of them.
[+] [-] rasz_pl|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]