Only a matter of time before they modify the Law to introduce a catch that makes it practically worthless.
A - A classification system that makes defines how "easy" it is to repair something, but necessarily doesn't mean that you or I can repair it at home.It will be "easy" IF you have the right 50,000 GBP tool.
B - Modify right to repair as good for the environment rule. There will be an escape clause that says that right to repair can be suspended, if the product is very eco-friendly (or needs specialized, exotic materials for construction). Manufacturers will take this route by claiming that they use "exotic" materials and therefoere cannot allow users to repair it at home.
Given how much of EU innovation is bogged down by regulatory capture, I am extremely skeptical of this (note, I know EU/UK are separated, but nevertheless, lobbying is lobbying, universally)
> A - A classification system that makes defines how "easy" it is to repair something, but necessarily doesn't mean that you or I can repair it at home.It will be "easy" IF you have the right 50,000 GBP tool.
Louis Rossmann did a video tearing apart France's recent implementation of this from the perspective of an Apple repair technician. Despite serialized parts, soldered/glued components, and no available schematics, the MacBook Pro got a pretty good repair-ability score (7/10) because it was easy to open the chassis. Meanwhile, Apple certified repair partners (repair professionals, in theory) are so handicapped by the company that they can basically only replace screens and batteries.
If everybody were such a pessimist, we'd never try to improve anything because there's a risk it might not always work or need adjustment in the future.
And a certain someone would also be there telling everyone not to go outside of the cave because there's tigers :)
Do you have any citations for your claim about EU innovation being bogged down by regulatory capture? In general, I've found that it's more like risk aversion in VC and other local cultural aspects before anything at an EU level comes into play.
OTOH, removing things like "Warranty void if this sticker is removed" clauses means the pressure is on manufacturers to actually think carefully about how their product can be repaired.
> Given how much of EU innovation is bogged down by regulatory capture, I am extremely skeptical of this (note, I know EU/UK are separated, but nevertheless, lobbying is lobbying, universally)
I share your scepticism about lobbying, was always mindful that Brussels in regards to the EU made lobbiests access to MEP's easier than the people they serve and all in one location - a lobbiyst dream that.
So be interesting how the EU and UK versions of this law diverge over time.
But however cynical I am, it's better than what we have now and from that, a start. How it goes from there will be future changes and debate down the line.
I certainly hope the whole green/eco/responsible ethos is used to drive thru improvements like this and shift away from disposable, cheap, just engineered enough to last a few years when a bit of extra cost would of made it last longer.
> Given how much of EU innovation is bogged down by regulatory capture, I am extremely skeptical of this (note, I know EU/UK are separated, but nevertheless, lobbying is lobbying, universally)
That‘s probably how the concept of „legitimate interest“ made its way into the GDPR law, make it practically worthless, with the single upside of making people more aware of cross-site tracking.
Another example of half-assed EU law: EU data roaming. Given that EU is all about the free mobility of people, the data roaming „fair use policy“ makes no sense. If we‘re pretending to be in a single market, why don‘t we have a single market for telecommunication services? I can order stuff from amazon.fr and have it delivered, yet I can‘t have a mobile phone contract from say... a Spanish company.
I don't have high hopes if laws are essentially written by big corporations (still tax loopholes have not been closed, barriers to entry increase for small business etc)
I think any right to repair needs to solve 2 problems:
1: Fixing bad hardware (schematics and such)
2: Fixing old/buggy/broken software that renders said hardware useless. Without open kernels, drivers, frameworks your "right to repair" is meaningless. When you install a new camera to iPhone and it complains it's not genuine because the software says so, the right to repair becomes less useful as now Apple holds all the cards as to who gets to repair and how much that costs.
You need to tackle both since often times these days they work together. For example, the Open Source community should be able to tinker with my TV's kernel and other parts to add new features rather than it being locked down and features being removed because the manufacturer couldn't be bothered to pay a royalty license.
What if the hardware is 100% okay but the software is broken? Is there a right to inspect the code? If not then all of these laws are redundant. All it takes is one update to "mistakenly" bork an older model or it to run a bit slower or janky animations or anything else and in the bin it goes.
There needs to be a clause that makes the software and other designs specifications openly available (or for some small fee, not exceeding a reasonable percentage of the product's retail price), once the product is no longer supported by the manufacturer.
I.e. the manufacturer has produced a newer - presumably better - device that non-technical users will want to buy, and the old devices can be handed down to more technical and tinkerer types to play around with and improve upon.
Most TVs run Linux so asking them for GPLed code should work, failing that, it is a GPL violation that should be reported to Software Freedom Conservancy, who can help bring the vendor into compliance.
The manufacturers should simply be held accountable in that they provide a means to have approved replacement hardware providers. Having software modification available could lead to cases where safety is jeopardized; any claim it cannot be is laughable; let alone who is liable if modified software causes the issue. The manufacturer would possibly be stuck proving it.
Plus people vastly underestimate how much replacement components will cost along with which components are reasonably designated as replaceable.
When you get to appliance level items TVs are an interesting case because its highly unlikely panels will be as cheap as new televisions and creating a case where they have to be less than the television will simply pass that cost onto anyone buying that television. The controller cards, power supply, and such, likely will be more readily available but of them the power supply is the only true part which would be more universal across items.
Which brings me to, the best way to have an easier to repair world is to eliminate non standard plugs along with customized power supplies or chargers within the same product type.
edit: another concern with software, the expectation that camera code be open does not protect the manufacturer intellectual property in regards to new and interesting methods to provide better picture quality.
I think the problem with unofficial repairs right now is where the parts come from. If you buy an iphone camera, where does that camera actually come from. I doubt there is an unoffical iphone camera factory. So those parts only have 2 sources, broken and stolen iphones.
What ideally would happen is each part on the iphone has a serial number and is registered with icloud. If a phone gets stolen, you get a message when you install the camera telling you this. And if the original user deregisters their phone on the icloud web ui, the camera works again. Then Apple should be forced to publicly sell this part for a reasonable price for x years.
Just these small steps would move us a long way to repairability.
I had to get a couple of appliances repaired recently. The handy man charges a minimum of 50 GBP per hour. Established and organized business charge upwards of 100 as a call-out charge alone (parts extra). If it's a non-trivial electronic repair, the spare would cost 150+ (and they're allowed to mark up prices as they please). Now add all that up, and a sweet 20% VAT on top, and voila, that's nearly how much a new one costs, plus it comes with n years of warranty; even better, I get the opportunity buy extended warranty. What I didn't mention is the waiting time for someone to visit in the first place.
Essentially, it's economical and sensible to get at most one repair on an appliance done. If it's an appliance on which you depend daily, you might not be in a position to wait to get it repaired.
Solution: get a new one. Nearly same cost; no wait; new features. Plus, they'll also take away your old one, and may even give you a discount.
But if you can do it yourself, the economics change dramatically.
I'm not sure what the proposed law changes in this respect. I've fixed boilers, phones, computers, TVs, dishwashers and washing machines to varying degrees without call-out costs. Part availability has never really been an issue.
I have to wonder - was repairing (rather than replacing) appliances cheaper in the past? If so, is there a clear cause on why repair prices have changed?
Hopefully such things bring forced availability of rare spare parts. If cookie cutter capacitors break, that's nothing really since you can just order them on Mouser et al.
But if a more special part breaks, say a custom voltage regulator to a game console (just since I saw a video on that fail yesterday), I would like for a repair center to be able to buy one such for a reasonable price and have the 500$ console repaired for perhaps 100$ - not scrap it.
My ~£300 Tannoy powered subwoofer for my home theatre failed recently.
They refused to honour the 10 year warranty because my proof of purchase wasn't in the right format or some such. Surely proof is proof? I paid the same money as everyone else.
Well, luckily for me, I have a degree in Electronic Engineering, so a week or so of reverse engineering and a few hundred £s in test equipment later I replaced the 20p Schottky diode which has failed and I have a working sub.
First manufacturers need to put their money where their mouth is regarding warranties, not have stupid obtuse get out clauses.
Secondly, fuck Tannoy, and all associated brands, they just lost a customer for life over this, so much for buying "British" as a Brit, I'll vote with my wallet.
Taking brand suggestions for future purchases who treat their customers a little better.
The door shelves in our crappy fridge at home have all gradually cracked and split and are held in place by messes of superglue and transparent Gorilla tape. Fed up with this, I priced up replacing them last week.
We also need specific exceptions to DMCA 1201-style laws (most countries copypasted the 1201 language) to allow circumvention for repair purposes, and specifically allow distribution of circumvention tools in cases where first-party repair is no longer available. If you don't service console disc drives anymore, I should legally be able to tell everyone how to unlock their disc drives so they can be swapped with spares.
(For the record: Most 1201 exceptions do NOT cover tools, under the idea that lawful circumvention will be carried out by entities that can do their own RE work.)
I fear the replacement parts for such a repair will be the entire power supply pcb or enclosure as oppose to the discrete failed components. Therefore complying with the law but likely still expensive compared to new.
I suspect the multitude of little plastic catches, clips, switches, levers etc that everything contains now are the major source of appliances being junked.
This kind of stuff is how government “incentives” end up essentially banning devices with such fancy parts because the companies will realize complying would be taking a loss so they just stop participating.
Would be great if they defined what is a spare part. Somehow I have a feeling that this is just a PR to shut right to repair campaigns down by saying "look we have implemented this, what else do you want?" Reality will be you still won't be able to buy individual custom ICs with their datasheets but whole PCBs at a prices only slightly cheaper than a new product.
ifixit has only ever given two phones 10/10 in its repairability scores, the Fairphone 2 and 3, and only one other phone has scored above 7 since 2017. What we really need is system to seriously penalise manufacturers until they fundamentally change practices.
When everything is a commodity it's hard to see how this will be useful.
When an appliance (fridge, cooker, washing machine) breaks, it's cheaper to replace. I cannot see how repairing a TV will ever be cheaper than just replacing it since they are so cheap brand new.
This also applies to smartphones, none of the popular models have replaceable batteries so in the trash they go and they become worthless, even if the hardware could keep up for 10 years often the software is outdated, inseceure and not worth using.
I'll be hard pressed to believe this will result in anything tangible. The real test is if they can convince Apple to make Louis' job easier, wouldn't that be nice.
If you can find me a new TV at that price, please let me know!
Yes, getting in a professional at £X per hour means it is probably not economical to repair a cheap washing machine. But if the parts and manuals are easily available, it suddenly becomes a lot quicker and easier to repair it yourself rather than replace.
We had an old mixer-grinder which ran for a decade or so. After it broke down, I went to an official repair shop, and they quoted an amount which make buying a new one a better option. So we did - from different company. It turned out that the new one constantly gave us problems, but we stuck with it for years. And one day while cleaning up our home, we found the old mixer and gave it to our domestic help to keep if she could get it repaired.
She did get it repaired. For less than a DOLLAR! And it still runs better than the new-fangled mixer.
I've repaired all my appliances myself over the last 20+ years, to say it's cheaper to replace is just plain false, even today. Most faults are easy fixes like sensors or motors and even the higher end PCB replacements work out cheaper.
However! if you are not inclined to fix yourself then the costs to have someone else fix your appliances may not work out as cost effective.
> When an appliance (fridge, cooker, washing machine) breaks, it's cheaper to replace
In a lot of cases it's not, but people don't want to troubleshoot or 3rd part makes more money by replacing it.
I try to fix my suff not for economical reasons, but environmental. In many instances I also save time as well. A few examples:
- car service wanted to replace windshield wipers on my car. I took a piece of sandpaper and cleaned up wax and oxidised rubber. They could last an extra year.
- Microwave stopped working. I cleaned up the connector to the magnetron. I took me less time than buying a new one.
- Plumbing under the sink. Pretty sure the plumber would like to replace everything and charge me a lot, plus it would take a few hours to find a guy, book him and be at home at that time.
I think I save about 10h and over $500 per year. It's often fun to replace something.
I had my fridge repaired this summer. A repair person come with his car and tools at my home, spent 2 hours to find and fix the fridge and I think it costed me less then 20% of the fridge full price. It is a real waste to throw a good fridge engine because the doors is not closing properly or a pipe is leaking some gas.
I live in Romania so this might not apply to other places so your experience is localized not global, and with an expensive enough product (like a super expensive TV or laptop) I bet most people would want it fixed and spent the money on some other gadget.
> Manufacturers will be legally obliged to make spare parts for products available to consumers for the first time – a new legal right for repairs.
I take it that third-parties will not get any new freedoms then, and that things like design patents will continue to apply there. I wonder if the law will have anything to say about price-point, if there's no competition.
I was surprised to see no mention of the matter of companies deliberately engineering their products to be hostile to user repairs. I was under the impression that forbidding that kind of thing was the main point of right-to-repair legislation.
(For example, one part of the system might verify that a peripheral has some cryptographic key to prove that it's an authentic first-party part. With this technique, third-party products either don't work, or are set upon by lawyers for breaking copyright law in cloning the key.)
I think many of us are ignoring the environmental impact and hassle derived from the act of having to buy new instead of repairing:
- Found out what happened in the first place.
- Looking for a new model you like since the one you already had and liked doesn't exist anymore. Price compare. Get it delivered and possibly wait a few days.
- Possibly the appliance must be installed by a technician. Arrange an appointment for that.
- Set up the machine and get everyone to learn how to use the appliance.
- Find out that some things don't work as they used to.
- Dispose the plastics, papers from the packaging.
- Scan the new manual for your records.
- Dispose the old appliance in a proper way (electronic trash must be disposed in other facilities than the packaging)
- Repeat.
This is about giving the possibility of repairs. The consumer is to decide what is economically posible, but I think a lot of possibilities might open up, like remote-assisted repairs and tutorials.
If the original problem is "people consume too much short-lived plastic crap", then maybe let's address the root cause, rather than placing a band-aid of DIY fixing things that keep breaking.
For instance, how about having more people buy more expensive / longer-living stuff that does not pile up on landfills in an economy where money is sound, people are encouraged to save it and buy better quality and longer living stuff, thus incentivizing investment in lengthier R&D and supply chains and generally being more thoughtful about the longer-term effects like ecology rather than how to keep up with mortgage and other debt, living from paycheck to paycheck. (Pro tip: Bitcoin.)
Oh gawd what kind of bullshit is this going to lead to I wonder. An even more obtrusive physical version of how I have to click “accept cookies” all over the damn internet now? As if using a web browser wasn’t consent enough.
As for hundreds other useless regulations that bog us down.
For example, compare the warranty process with Apple and with any of the other laptop companies. If regulations worked you wouldn't even consider warranty to be a good selling point.
Still I've been burned by warranties services so many times, threatened to report, reported to consumer report and I got nothing out of it.
I don't even consider it. I just buy crap I'll try to fix myself if it breaks or I buy from a reputable company.
What are the regulations doing for us then?
How many companies using dark patterns in their EU imposed cookie banners have been fined?
Apple has been sued multiple times in the EU because of onerous warranty practices and lost. Obviously their working warranty doesn't work so great.
There's at least one website tracking GDPR fines. It's gonna take a while given that everyone is illegitimately collecting data on their visitors/customers.
[+] [-] draklor40|5 years ago|reply
A - A classification system that makes defines how "easy" it is to repair something, but necessarily doesn't mean that you or I can repair it at home.It will be "easy" IF you have the right 50,000 GBP tool.
B - Modify right to repair as good for the environment rule. There will be an escape clause that says that right to repair can be suspended, if the product is very eco-friendly (or needs specialized, exotic materials for construction). Manufacturers will take this route by claiming that they use "exotic" materials and therefoere cannot allow users to repair it at home.
Given how much of EU innovation is bogged down by regulatory capture, I am extremely skeptical of this (note, I know EU/UK are separated, but nevertheless, lobbying is lobbying, universally)
[+] [-] CivBase|5 years ago|reply
Louis Rossmann did a video tearing apart France's recent implementation of this from the perspective of an Apple repair technician. Despite serialized parts, soldered/glued components, and no available schematics, the MacBook Pro got a pretty good repair-ability score (7/10) because it was easy to open the chassis. Meanwhile, Apple certified repair partners (repair professionals, in theory) are so handicapped by the company that they can basically only replace screens and batteries.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PO7vdk_X5W4
[+] [-] blub|5 years ago|reply
And a certain someone would also be there telling everyone not to go outside of the cave because there's tigers :)
[+] [-] hnhg|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kitd|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Zenst|5 years ago|reply
I share your scepticism about lobbying, was always mindful that Brussels in regards to the EU made lobbiests access to MEP's easier than the people they serve and all in one location - a lobbiyst dream that.
So be interesting how the EU and UK versions of this law diverge over time.
But however cynical I am, it's better than what we have now and from that, a start. How it goes from there will be future changes and debate down the line.
I certainly hope the whole green/eco/responsible ethos is used to drive thru improvements like this and shift away from disposable, cheap, just engineered enough to last a few years when a bit of extra cost would of made it last longer.
[+] [-] bluesign|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dsnr|5 years ago|reply
That‘s probably how the concept of „legitimate interest“ made its way into the GDPR law, make it practically worthless, with the single upside of making people more aware of cross-site tracking.
Another example of half-assed EU law: EU data roaming. Given that EU is all about the free mobility of people, the data roaming „fair use policy“ makes no sense. If we‘re pretending to be in a single market, why don‘t we have a single market for telecommunication services? I can order stuff from amazon.fr and have it delivered, yet I can‘t have a mobile phone contract from say... a Spanish company.
[+] [-] intricatedetail|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aboringusername|5 years ago|reply
1: Fixing bad hardware (schematics and such)
2: Fixing old/buggy/broken software that renders said hardware useless. Without open kernels, drivers, frameworks your "right to repair" is meaningless. When you install a new camera to iPhone and it complains it's not genuine because the software says so, the right to repair becomes less useful as now Apple holds all the cards as to who gets to repair and how much that costs.
You need to tackle both since often times these days they work together. For example, the Open Source community should be able to tinker with my TV's kernel and other parts to add new features rather than it being locked down and features being removed because the manufacturer couldn't be bothered to pay a royalty license.
What if the hardware is 100% okay but the software is broken? Is there a right to inspect the code? If not then all of these laws are redundant. All it takes is one update to "mistakenly" bork an older model or it to run a bit slower or janky animations or anything else and in the bin it goes.
[+] [-] KozmoNau7|5 years ago|reply
I.e. the manufacturer has produced a newer - presumably better - device that non-technical users will want to buy, and the old devices can be handed down to more technical and tinkerer types to play around with and improve upon.
[+] [-] pabs3|5 years ago|reply
https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/
[+] [-] Shivetya|5 years ago|reply
The manufacturers should simply be held accountable in that they provide a means to have approved replacement hardware providers. Having software modification available could lead to cases where safety is jeopardized; any claim it cannot be is laughable; let alone who is liable if modified software causes the issue. The manufacturer would possibly be stuck proving it.
Plus people vastly underestimate how much replacement components will cost along with which components are reasonably designated as replaceable.
When you get to appliance level items TVs are an interesting case because its highly unlikely panels will be as cheap as new televisions and creating a case where they have to be less than the television will simply pass that cost onto anyone buying that television. The controller cards, power supply, and such, likely will be more readily available but of them the power supply is the only true part which would be more universal across items.
Which brings me to, the best way to have an easier to repair world is to eliminate non standard plugs along with customized power supplies or chargers within the same product type.
edit: another concern with software, the expectation that camera code be open does not protect the manufacturer intellectual property in regards to new and interesting methods to provide better picture quality.
[+] [-] foobar33333|5 years ago|reply
What ideally would happen is each part on the iphone has a serial number and is registered with icloud. If a phone gets stolen, you get a message when you install the camera telling you this. And if the original user deregisters their phone on the icloud web ui, the camera works again. Then Apple should be forced to publicly sell this part for a reasonable price for x years.
Just these small steps would move us a long way to repairability.
[+] [-] glitchc|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] penguin_booze|5 years ago|reply
Essentially, it's economical and sensible to get at most one repair on an appliance done. If it's an appliance on which you depend daily, you might not be in a position to wait to get it repaired.
Solution: get a new one. Nearly same cost; no wait; new features. Plus, they'll also take away your old one, and may even give you a discount.
Summary: I'm skeptical this changes anything.
[+] [-] oliwarner|5 years ago|reply
I'm not sure what the proposed law changes in this respect. I've fixed boilers, phones, computers, TVs, dishwashers and washing machines to varying degrees without call-out costs. Part availability has never really been an issue.
[+] [-] Varriount|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] retSava|5 years ago|reply
But if a more special part breaks, say a custom voltage regulator to a game console (just since I saw a video on that fail yesterday), I would like for a repair center to be able to buy one such for a reasonable price and have the 500$ console repaired for perhaps 100$ - not scrap it.
[+] [-] alias_neo|5 years ago|reply
They refused to honour the 10 year warranty because my proof of purchase wasn't in the right format or some such. Surely proof is proof? I paid the same money as everyone else.
Well, luckily for me, I have a degree in Electronic Engineering, so a week or so of reverse engineering and a few hundred £s in test equipment later I replaced the 20p Schottky diode which has failed and I have a working sub.
First manufacturers need to put their money where their mouth is regarding warranties, not have stupid obtuse get out clauses.
Secondly, fuck Tannoy, and all associated brands, they just lost a customer for life over this, so much for buying "British" as a Brit, I'll vote with my wallet.
Taking brand suggestions for future purchases who treat their customers a little better.
[+] [-] detritus|5 years ago|reply
It'll be cheaper to buy a new fridge.
They're just crappy moulded plastic
[+] [-] kmeisthax|5 years ago|reply
(For the record: Most 1201 exceptions do NOT cover tools, under the idea that lawful circumvention will be carried out by entities that can do their own RE work.)
[+] [-] maxbaines|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 5h|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] luxuryballs|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] intricatedetail|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wiz21c|5 years ago|reply
Now, at least there's a law. Then in a few years, other will want to widen that law, etc. In the end, we'll get there...
[+] [-] nanna|5 years ago|reply
https://www.ifixit.com/smartphone-repairability?sort=score
[+] [-] aboringusername|5 years ago|reply
When an appliance (fridge, cooker, washing machine) breaks, it's cheaper to replace. I cannot see how repairing a TV will ever be cheaper than just replacing it since they are so cheap brand new.
This also applies to smartphones, none of the popular models have replaceable batteries so in the trash they go and they become worthless, even if the hardware could keep up for 10 years often the software is outdated, inseceure and not worth using.
I'll be hard pressed to believe this will result in anything tangible. The real test is if they can convince Apple to make Louis' job easier, wouldn't that be nice.
[+] [-] edent|5 years ago|reply
https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2020/10/replacing-the-motionengine-...
If you can find me a new TV at that price, please let me know!
Yes, getting in a professional at £X per hour means it is probably not economical to repair a cheap washing machine. But if the parts and manuals are easily available, it suddenly becomes a lot quicker and easier to repair it yourself rather than replace.
[+] [-] kumarharsh|5 years ago|reply
We had an old mixer-grinder which ran for a decade or so. After it broke down, I went to an official repair shop, and they quoted an amount which make buying a new one a better option. So we did - from different company. It turned out that the new one constantly gave us problems, but we stuck with it for years. And one day while cleaning up our home, we found the old mixer and gave it to our domestic help to keep if she could get it repaired.
She did get it repaired. For less than a DOLLAR! And it still runs better than the new-fangled mixer.
[+] [-] xd|5 years ago|reply
However! if you are not inclined to fix yourself then the costs to have someone else fix your appliances may not work out as cost effective.
[+] [-] ed_balls|5 years ago|reply
In a lot of cases it's not, but people don't want to troubleshoot or 3rd part makes more money by replacing it.
I try to fix my suff not for economical reasons, but environmental. In many instances I also save time as well. A few examples:
- car service wanted to replace windshield wipers on my car. I took a piece of sandpaper and cleaned up wax and oxidised rubber. They could last an extra year.
- Microwave stopped working. I cleaned up the connector to the magnetron. I took me less time than buying a new one.
- Plumbing under the sink. Pretty sure the plumber would like to replace everything and charge me a lot, plus it would take a few hours to find a guy, book him and be at home at that time.
I think I save about 10h and over $500 per year. It's often fun to replace something.
[+] [-] BiteCode_dev|5 years ago|reply
Depends how much you paid for it, where you live, what it means to procure one, etc.
Also, cost might not be the only factor for you. Ethic, preferences, attachment or logistic can kick in.
[+] [-] simion314|5 years ago|reply
I live in Romania so this might not apply to other places so your experience is localized not global, and with an expensive enough product (like a super expensive TV or laptop) I bet most people would want it fixed and spent the money on some other gadget.
[+] [-] MaxBarraclough|5 years ago|reply
I take it that third-parties will not get any new freedoms then, and that things like design patents will continue to apply there. I wonder if the law will have anything to say about price-point, if there's no competition.
I was surprised to see no mention of the matter of companies deliberately engineering their products to be hostile to user repairs. I was under the impression that forbidding that kind of thing was the main point of right-to-repair legislation.
(For example, one part of the system might verify that a peripheral has some cryptographic key to prove that it's an authentic first-party part. With this technique, third-party products either don't work, or are set upon by lawyers for breaking copyright law in cloning the key.)
[+] [-] helloguillecl|5 years ago|reply
- Found out what happened in the first place.
- Looking for a new model you like since the one you already had and liked doesn't exist anymore. Price compare. Get it delivered and possibly wait a few days.
- Possibly the appliance must be installed by a technician. Arrange an appointment for that.
- Set up the machine and get everyone to learn how to use the appliance.
- Find out that some things don't work as they used to.
- Dispose the plastics, papers from the packaging.
- Scan the new manual for your records.
- Dispose the old appliance in a proper way (electronic trash must be disposed in other facilities than the packaging)
- Repeat.
This is about giving the possibility of repairs. The consumer is to decide what is economically posible, but I think a lot of possibilities might open up, like remote-assisted repairs and tutorials.
[+] [-] oleganza|5 years ago|reply
For instance, how about having more people buy more expensive / longer-living stuff that does not pile up on landfills in an economy where money is sound, people are encouraged to save it and buy better quality and longer living stuff, thus incentivizing investment in lengthier R&D and supply chains and generally being more thoughtful about the longer-term effects like ecology rather than how to keep up with mortgage and other debt, living from paycheck to paycheck. (Pro tip: Bitcoin.)
[+] [-] pabs3|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] superbcarrot|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] luxuryballs|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jokethrowaway|5 years ago|reply
As for hundreds other useless regulations that bog us down.
For example, compare the warranty process with Apple and with any of the other laptop companies. If regulations worked you wouldn't even consider warranty to be a good selling point.
Still I've been burned by warranties services so many times, threatened to report, reported to consumer report and I got nothing out of it. I don't even consider it. I just buy crap I'll try to fix myself if it breaks or I buy from a reputable company.
What are the regulations doing for us then?
How many companies using dark patterns in their EU imposed cookie banners have been fined?
[+] [-] blub|5 years ago|reply
There's at least one website tracking GDPR fines. It's gonna take a while given that everyone is illegitimately collecting data on their visitors/customers.
[+] [-] matthewfelgate|5 years ago|reply
Maybe limits of the repair costs?
Being able to attempt repairs without compromising warranty would be good.
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Hani1337|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aminozuur|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smitty1e|5 years ago|reply
Why are companies not marketing along the lines of: "You can tinker with this. Our product does not treat you like the product."
I'd pay a 20% premium or so not to be spied upon and enslaved. "Freedom isn't free. There's a heavy [FLOWERBED] fee."
[+] [-] golemiprague|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Proven|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]