[baroffoos]

The problem is even though we can do this, the average user doesn't. They get the unsupported message and they then throw the laptop in the bin and buy the same thing again.

All electronics makers should be required by law to supply security updates and spare parts for devices for at least 10 years after the point of sale (not after the release date).

Another thing I think would have a big impact is requiring all consumer electronics with a battery to have a user accessible method for replacing the battery. This used to be standard with all consumer electronics until very recently.

These laws aren't just needed to protect the customers from corporate bullshit, they are critical for the survival of our environment. Designing electronics to last for 2-3 years is devastating.

[pgeorgi]

> All electronics makers should be required by law to supply security updates and spare parts for devices for at least 10 years after the point of sale (not after the release date).

Let's start by requiring then that chip vendors sell and support their chips for at least that long?

To stick to "10 years since introduction to market" which is a much easier requirement: 2009 was the year of AMD Phenom II (EOL 2012) and Intel Nehalem (EOL around 2012), and Qualcomm MSM7227 (couldn't find EOL date, but its direct successor came out 2011).

How much stock should they keep around for the 10 extra years after 3 years on the market? (and what happens if they underprovision, will they be sued, or overprovision, throw it all in the bin? they can't sell it, or the 10 year clock starts again)

> to have a user accessible method for replacing the battery. This used to be standard with all consumer electronics until very recently.

... and then vendors sold thinner and thinner devices, and customers preferred them over the others. The only way to get the same mileage out of a thinner device is to put batteries in every nook you can find, which doesn't work so well if the battery is supposed to be a single replaceable part. Also, there are two layers of plastic (chassis, battery container) that take away space that could be better used to store energy.

[zxcmx]

Regulation gets interesting too. What devices does this apply to? Does it apply to smart tvs, thermostats, printers, anything with software? (which will soon be everything). Components?

Can I import a device? What vetting / certification process will be applied? Who does that? What happens when devices are manufactured by subsidiaries which get folded after 3 years? What if "updates" are provided that don't actually fix any vulnerabilities? What counts as a vulnerability for the purpose of the law?

[baroffoos]

I don't mean to suggest that this is a simple problem to solve. But the importance of this is far to great to ignore.

>How much stock should they keep around for the 10 extra years after 3 years on the market? (and what happens if they underprovision, will they be sued, or overprovision, throw it all in the bin? they can't sell it, or the 10 year clock starts again)

There is no reason they need to replace parts with the exact same chip they came with. If newer CPUs/chips are available they could put a new model in. There will likely need to be more standardization so individual parts can be replaced/upgraded but this is not impossible and is very common for parts like GPUs and pci cards.

There are also mountains of these parts floating around after sale. The OEM could encourage the return of unwanted electronics and then gut them for parts to use in repairs after they have been tested. Any leftovers after 10 years can be sent to recycling.

>vendors sold thinner and thinner devices, and customers preferred them over the others.

Customers preferences need to take a back seat over environmental needs. A customer can live with a 1mm thicker phone. They can't live without air and survivable weather.

None of this is trivial and it will be a massive shakeup to the status quo but there is no other alternative. In the end we will all be better off.

[jdsully]

> Let's start by requiring then that chip vendors sell and support their chips for at least that long?

You should make laws as close to the desired effect as possible. The market will sort out the most efficient way to accomplish that. Manufacturers will start placing availability terms into their contracts or stockpile as necessary.

[dwg]

Why they should electronic makers be "required" to do supply security updates and spare parts for 10 years? To begin with, 10 years is somewhat arbitrary. Why not 12? 15? 20? These tractors could be serviceable for 50 years or more? So why not 50?

Not every consumer wants or cares about this, but every consumer would be forced to pay for it. How would this even be enforced? Who will be the judge of what updates were important and what were not? What if they provide only cheap replacement parts which regularly fail? What if the company goes out of business a few years later? So many problems...

In my opinion it's one thing to create protections that prevent the stoppage of unauthorized repair, or the development of 3rd party replacement parts. However, it's another thing entirely to force companies to provide these services themselves for an arbitrary length of time.

[ClumsyPilot]

Security updates should absolutely be a legal obligation. Their absence enables theft, criminal activity, botnets, etc.

For the same reason we have laws on fire safety, food safety, carcinogens and asbestos. Average consumer may not know or care about their existence. But if we get rid if them all, organised society will collapse.

[baroffoos]

I'm happy to listen to alternative solutions on how the environment can be protected from needless product waste. And no, recycling doesn't come close to reuse/repairs.

>Not every consumer wants or cares about this

What consumers want or care about is less important than the ability to live on the planet in 100 years.

[egeozcan]

> To begin with, 10 years is somewhat arbitrary. Why not 12? 15? 20?

I think the idea is great, filling your proposal with Xs ans Ys isn't. This is not code, it's a suggestion :)

[raxxorrax]

> All electronics makers should be required by law to supply security updates and spare parts for devices

I don't think that is feasible and could ruin manufacturers. But in the case they end the support, they should provide access for users to install other sofware solutions and remove protective barriers.