Slashdot Mirror


EU Prepares 'Right To Repair' Legislation To Fight Short Product Lifespans (bleepingcomputer.com)

An anonymous reader writes: The EU is preparing legislation that would legalize a customer's "right to repair," and would force vendors to design products for longer life and easier maintenance, in an effort to combat electronic waste and abusive practices like manufacturers legally preventing users from repairing their devices. The legislation is in its earlier stages of public discussion, but it already has the backing of several EU Members of Parliament, along with support from organizations like Greenpeace.

Currently, in the US only eleven states have similar laws, and they have been adopted after years of public discussions, and only for certain markets, and not for all types of products. It is unclear what leverage the EU will use to force manufacturers to produce longer lasting products, as this would mean lesser profits for big businesses, who often used tactics such as software DRMs, warranty contract lock-ins, and soldering components together, just to avoid users repairing products on their own.

12 of 190 comments (clear)

  1. Damming the flood/whack a mole by Evtim · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While I applaud such measures [as a techno-nerd one of the most infuriating aspects of the economy for me is the enforced obsolescence] I cannot help but wonder - since the whole planet agrees on the basic principles of free market capitalism, which inevitably result in forced obsolescence and a race to the bottom ["best product for the most affordable price' is the same as "worst product for the highest possible price"] why do we then spend absolutely enormous amount of time, money and effort to STOP the system going to where it goes naturally based on its premises.

    What an absurd idea - make the worst and most destructive qualities of humans the most rewarded in the system [greed!], thus creating evolutionary pressure for all of us to become more and more sociopathic [i.e. successful] and then start pushing against the inevitable outcome.

    Why don't we change the system so that it encourages and promotes human survival, procreation and happiness rather than greed and criminal wasting of resources. Ah, I know - the economists told me that the present system reflects exactly human nature [which is flawed, so we can't do jack shit about that - what a fucking LIE this is!] so this is the best of all possible worlds - where the ancestors of those economist set the system 200 years ago to benefit the "haves" and now we call that "natural system"; we claim that it is as immutable as the laws of Nature rather than a scam set up by humans to keep and increase their power.

    'Summary: Humanity collectively opened the shitter above our heads and then stood in the shit rain wondering why it is shit and not honey.....unbelievable!

    1. Re:Damming the flood/whack a mole by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 5, Insightful

      since the whole planet agrees on the basic principles of free market capitalism,

      Really? European countries are fairly socialist. China is a communist government with a healthy leavening of capitalism. In the middle east, most countries are essentially giant oil companies (that collude in a monopoly) that play dividends to all their citizens.

      I mean, yes, everyone agrees that some free market capitalism in the mix is important. But no one thinks that unadulterated laissez-faire free market capitalism (except about half of America, the half in charge).

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    2. Re:Damming the flood/whack a mole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's nothing to do with Muslims, it's the fact the last few years have been a complete failure. We have learnt again that Tory policies are as corrupt and non-evidence-based as they have ever been. Despite the desperate attempts by the hard right in the UK to deceive the poor and uneducated that they will represent them people are starting to wake up and realise that's a complete fallacy. Scandinavia shows that a happy and prosperous society can be achieved through progressive policies and that the current regressive regime of conservatism only helps the already rich and big business.

  2. What we really need is information. by robbak · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The main impediment to repair of electronics is simply lack of information - that schematics and board overlays are simply unavailable. Without them, a repair person is flying blind. With them, they can determine the fault by measuring voltage rails around the board, and the repair is often replacing jelly bean parts that are worth pennies - or just bypassing broken board connections. The other thing we lack is source code. manufacturers abandon products as soon as they are sold, and withhold source code (as well as locking the device up with code signing) so users cannot fix their bugs. 'Right to repair' legislation should address these problems first.

    --
    Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
    1. Re:What we really need is information. by v1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't think it's nearly as cut-and-dry as you think it is. Things like schematics and source code are only useful to a very small percentage of consumers, let alone actual technicians. Most of the time only high dollar items will ever be worth repairing. What good is a schematic to repair a $20 device, when a an hour of a repair tech's time is $50? And really, source code? Try to find a shop you can take something to in order to have it reprogrammed. And then how much is several hours of a coder's time going to cost you?

      A lot of this issue is more about the legal aspect, where companies abuse laws like DMCA and Copyright to help lawyers make repairs and 3rd party parts and services unlawful. It's the "razor blade game" where you are legally forced to buy their blades. It's easy for service parts to be that way simply because an electronic daughterboard or ECU is pretty easily seen as patentable, and the program that runs on it is copyrighted. Black-box development of say a replacement ECU is possible, but expensive, and then they try as above to abuse laws like DMCA to keep you buried armpit-deep in lawyers and sue you into leaving the market, whether or not they've actually found something legally justifiable to keep you out. They usually have a three step plan: 1: Sue you. if you win, 2: Sue you again. If you win (and assuming you still have enough money to keep paying your lawyers) then 3: buy you out and shutter your business. We see this time and time again. They need to address this "assault by attorney" problem head-on.

      Although a lot of technical people wish they could repair things more easily, the truth is that a lot of consumers aren't going to be willing to do what it takes (or COSTS) to repair things. I've got a drop-in charger for a radio here that I've been fiddling with on-and-off for weeks, and haven't been able to figure out. I had no schematic so I wrote one up. All the parts are obtainable. Haven't been able to figure out what's wrong with it yet though. What's my time worth? I suppose I'd have been a lot smarter to just have gotten online and bought a new one by now. A lot of things simply aren't worth anyone's time to fix, even if they have all the ideal support. And it's not just a matter of the manufacturer not making it repairable - a lot of the time it doesn't even matter because even with ideal circumstances that by its nature it's going to be cheaper to make a new one than fix your broken one.

      And if you're going to try to force them to make a better product, that's going to be a huge uphill battle. Manufacturing in the consumer market is a race-to-the-bottom where suppliers like China are doing their best to provide products at the minimum (and ABSOLUTE minimum) acceptable quality and durability the consumer will accept, in order to provide it at the lowest possible price. That makes forced-durability a tug-of-war, and one that will have boundaries and limits that are impossible to clearly define in any standard way.

      Look at a laptop computer nowadays. One board. Memory and even sometimes the SSD are soldered down. Unquestionably the lowest cost way to manufacture it. Display panel is one integrated piece, no separate backlight or even LCD controller, it's all glued into the top shell along with the camera. Again arguably the lowest cost way to make it. That leaves the top case with its keyboard, trackpad, and speakers, all manufactured as one piece. If you're thinking demanding the schematic to the board is going to get you anywhere, you're insane. How about the camera being replaceable? No, the consumer demands low cost and a thin, light design, and so the camera is going to have to stay glued into the top. The only point of leverage here that makes sense is to somehow cap the cost of the parts. An $800 laptop should not have a total cost to assemble from parts of $1500. If anything, the parts aren't assembled and that should result in a LOWER cost for sum of parts than for completed product. $800 laptop? Then $750

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
  3. Greenpeace? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    along with support from organizations like Greenpeace.

    If Greenpeace supports it, then I better take a closer look first.

    Too often, they did things purely for PR purpose and would do more harm than good.

  4. I am sceptical by jawtheshark · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I'm sceptical. One of their main examples is the cellphone. The problem with the celphone is that it's a bad example. Cellphones become obsolete due to software, not hardware. A typical iPhone can last up to 5 years (I still use an iPhone 5, not 5C, not 5S, 5). Changing batteries is 49€ at a local phone repair shop. It's no big deal. I know the support for that phone is going to stop around the next apple conference. However, in the cellphone world, this longevity is unheard of. This is because Apple provides the software, not just patches, true OS upgrades, free of charge for a long time. Yet, iPhones still sell. Why? Because people want the new iPhone!
    Would an out of support iPhone still be usable? Yes, but... at the first reported vulnerability, you'd would need to stop using it as a smartphone. As a normal phone, it could last for multiple more years. Case in point, I gave an old iPhone 4 to an aunt of my wife. Her subscription has no Internet. She uses it as a phone. It will cause no problems.

    The Android world has a support problem. Patches are only dependable with well know brands (Samsung) and you never know how long you'll get them (6 months? 2 years? Your guess is as good as mine!). Android handset developers have no incentive to update the software of their phones, because they want you to buy new handsets. This is where such a law would works, BUT, it would make those handset much more expensive: the software development costs would skyrocket, and as such the handset makers will have to charge more. You'll basically, get a world where Android handsets lose their "cost less" status.

    In summary: a law like this will ensure that your devices will double or triple in price. Basically making certain devices so high on the luxury ladder, that normal people won't be able to afford them... making the divide between poor and rich bigger. (Similar to the roaming regulation, where basically many people lost roaming because their plans became national-only... Or if you don't want that: pay more... often for less data/calls... In my eyes, it's the poor "less roaming" people subsiding the rich "travelling a lot and thus roaming" people... A scandal... It is, however, hailed as one of the major achievements of the EU.)

    --
    Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    1. Re:I am sceptical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      In summary: a law like this will ensure that your devices will double or triple in price.

      Rubbish. Prices didn't drop as a result of anti-repair measures being introduced, and wouldn't need to rise if those were to vanish.

      Basically making certain devices so high on the luxury ladder, that normal people won't be able to afford them... making the divide between poor and rich bigger. (Similar to the roaming regulation, where basically many people lost roaming because their plans became national-only... Or if you don't want that: pay more... often for less data/calls... In my eyes, it's the poor "less roaming" people subsiding the rich "travelling a lot and thus roaming" people... A scandal... It is, however, hailed as one of the major achievements of the EU.)

      That's all extrapolation from a false premise.

  5. Re:Love the idea, practice may be difficult by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Insightful

    As far as it needs to go to make repairing possible.

    So Europe's phones will be half a millimeter thicker than the phones in the rest of the world? Cry me a river.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  6. Re:Wonderful by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Oh please, melodrama much?

    For once the EU actually does something to the benefit of the average Joe, but rest assured you find some dimwit to complain about it.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  7. One Thought--Charge for the Landfill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Require appliance companies to label their products in an easily scannable way. Any time one of their products hits a waste transfer station, the appliance company has to pay the waste transfer station a nontrivial disposal fee that is a percentage of their list price. Start with a very high percentage if a product is disposed of in the first year after manufacture and reduce it over time.

    Give them a financial incentive to make their products last longer.

  8. Re:Not Lean by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    First of all, cost means nothing. Nothing at all. Take any phone you want. Now try to tell me with a straight face that the cost to make it has ANYTHING AT ALL to do with the price the customer has to pay. Try it and I'll yell BULLSHIT at you before you're done. Because it is.

    Cost has literally nothing to do with the final price of a product. Cost determines whether a product is made, for it will not be produced if the cost outgrows the potential selling price, but that's it. Do you really want to tell me the iPhone would get a cent cheaper if it could be made for 10 bucks less?

    The price the customer has to pay is a careful calculation of the profit "sweet spot". Where is the maximum of profit_per_item*items_sold? That's the question. You really want to convince anyone that the extra buck it costs to make it repairable would change that by even that buck? I call bullshit.

    And thickness: Newsflash, nobody gives a shit how thick your phone is. If anything, it might actually survive being slipped into a pocket again if it's thicker than the average slice of tinfoil again.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.