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.
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.
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!
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
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.
Send all the unrepairable junk to the UK. They will be desperate for any trade deal.
When I worked at a major electronic company in Belgium, the warranty period went from 1 to 2 years. We also sold extended warranties and that made a nice sum. When we went from 1 to 2 years, that would mean the following:
1) More repairs done during the warranty period
2) Less sales in warranties as people will think 2 years might be enough.
So I asked the CEO if this was a burden and he said no. The reason as that we knew exactly how much it would cost and the price was adapted accordingly (I believe an increase of 1% or less).
So what will happen is that the prices will slightly go up, so the companies will need to make up in loss for a tiny bit. Not even enough to really notice. If this means I get a better product that can be used for longer, I have no problem that the government "forces" me to pay a bit more.
It is a bit like paying extra for a red triangle in your car. It is a small extra cost required by law to have, but in the end it is better, even if I (hopefully) never need to use it.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
As someone who works in implementing lean practices, this is a terrible approach. There is a cost to making something user repairable. Extra connectors, new interfaces, room for accessing subassemblies (which increases overall size), added thickness to support thread engagement of screws. If there isn't a mandatory recycling program (i.e. manufacturer has to buy back failed or obsolete or unwanted product), then we're just going to create more waste.
Even with a strong recycling program, this is not a win unless a large number of customers *actually* repair their devices instead of buying the new shiny version. How do we know that this isn't creating a cost for all customers and wasted energy (more material) to appease a vocal minority of customers many of whom won't actually repair their devices?
The EU needs to figure out a way to improve this iteratively by making smaller, incremental changes and seeing if customers respond. For example, find the most common reasons phones get tossed out and address those - battery, screen, and phone body are obvious candidates for replacement. This gets say 80% of the issues addressed for minimal cost. Then move on to bigger problems.