Slashdot Mirror
Washington Bill Makes It Illegal To Sell Gadgets Without Replaceable Batteries (vice.com)
Jason Koebler writes: A bill that would make it easier to fix your electronics is rapidly hurtling through the Washington state legislature. The bill's ascent is fueled by Apple's iPhone-throttling controversy, which has placed a renewed focus on the fact that our electronics have become increasingly difficult to repair.
Starting in 2019, the bill would ban the sale of electronics that are designed "in such a way as to prevent reasonable diagnostic or repair functions by an independent repair provider. Preventing reasonable diagnostic or repair functions includes permanently affixing a battery in a manner that makes it difficult or impossible to remove."
Starting in 2019, the bill would ban the sale of electronics that are designed "in such a way as to prevent reasonable diagnostic or repair functions by an independent repair provider. Preventing reasonable diagnostic or repair functions includes permanently affixing a battery in a manner that makes it difficult or impossible to remove."
The problem with complex issues are that they're require even more complex language to establish surrounding rules.
Both sides play upon this matter but the fact is, the consumer typically loses these arguments against armies of corporate lawyers.
I cannot think of a single faucet of life, a human endeavor, or anything that we might seek to do, accomplish, or perform that isn't made better by legislation and governmental control and regulation.
This sort of legislation should be common sense. We should be far past the point where we quibble about having politicians telling engineers what to do - that should be already settled. And the tragedy is that while we wast time on these no brainers, we could well be legislating the core problems: mathematics and physics, human nature and belief systems. That's where there's real work to be done!
Yep, it is that kind of very vague language in law (especially more and more in today's laws coming thought State and Federal), that are so broadly worded, that it can cause problems, some in VERY distinct ways.
Another example of this, is the ATF about to redo regulations that pretty much define "machine" gun which is written as law. They are about to basically make new law (saving our congress critters from actually having to go on record and vote)....but essentially, they are being pressured into going after bump stocks.
The problems is, they aren't specifically mentioning bump stocks or precisely defining them. They are trying to broadly work it as "any device that increases the rate of fire". Well for one thing, there is not defined base level of "rate of fire".
That could mean ANY modification to a semi-auto weapon, like just putting in a lighter trigger for competition shooting...that allows you to increase your rate of fire. Hell, your finger could be considered a problem, in that it is pretty easy to hold an AR loosely enough to let the recoil hit your finger quickly and fire like you can with a bump stock..
To that note...high capacity magazines could come under fire, in that having larger capacities allow you to fire faster since you don't have to change more often.
That's just one example....but we need to force our legislators to quit working laws so broadly. Make them more precise, and when a new thing comes along, rather than trying to make a square peg fit into a round hole, come up with a new damned law, or pass real legislation to change things.
Don't just word it broadly, and then allow some UNELECTED bureaucratic enforcement agency define what things are.
Just because you may like it one way, doesn't mean it won't come to bite you in the ass on another topic you do care about.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
You're not smart enough to make an informed decision yourself!
You can't decide whether a completely waterproof design is worth having a non-replaceable battery!
We're the government! And we know what's best for you!
Now, pay a ludicrous tax on your soda, and no, you can't have a drinking straw!
I picked a phone for being waterproof, and I think all of those have non-removable batteries. Waterproof was more important to me than a removable battery.
Why should my choice be illegal because you don't like it? Are there no phones with removable batteries? I'm failing to see the issue here.
From TFS: "Preventing reasonable diagnostic or repair functions includes permanently affixing a battery in a manner that makes it difficult or impossible to remove."
There is some ambiguity, but the intent seems pretty obvious.
IMO, this legislation is something we've needed for a long time. Musical birthday cards should get a pass. But expensive consumer electronics should not be treated as disposable items.
Because American consumers are no longer functionally capable of not consuming. They can't speak with their wallets and simply not buy an iPhone, that's too hard.
On older the battery could be swapped by the user in seconds. Come back to that please!
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
(Some) people may know their phone is not repairable. However, they do not consider the environmental cost since the cost is passed on to the rest of the world. This is exactly the kind of situation where you need government intervention. To fix a market failure.
The bill literally contains 20 lines spent defining "fair and reasonable". Can you elaborate on why you consider it "vague".
From TFS: "Preventing reasonable diagnostic or repair functions includes permanently affixing a battery in a manner that makes it difficult or impossible to remove."
There is some ambiguity, but the intent seems pretty obvious.
Uh, no it's not, and this won't change a damn thing. Using the term "independent repair provider" even dictates that repairs will still not be something an end-user is authorized or allowed to do, and implies that consumers will still have to pay someone to change out a battery. No one "repairs" a battery, they get replaced, which is all consumers are asking for. We used to have removable batteries. Greed infected design, and now we do not.
Enough of the ambiguity. Enough of the bullshit. Word it in black and white terms. Electronic devices with rechargeable batteries should be designed in such a way that they are easily replaceable by the end user. See? It's not hard to remove the ambiguity and put a stop to relentless greed that continues to fuck over the consumer.
So, Lawmakers from Washington have outlawed Microsoft's entire Surface line. I'm sure Microsoft will be thrilled.
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
i dunno, i'd rather government take a step back from directly interfering in how companies design and market their products -- obviously with health, safety, and fraud concerns withstanding.
With regulations like this where does it end? It sucks that 'voting with your dollars' doesn't really work when all the manufacturers pull the same shenanigans; but having mommy government step in to dictate these things is an even worse idea. It's feel good legislation at its finest, but real world consequences intended or not are being ignored.
Are Ink cartridges next? Come on, HP/Cannon/Brother et all, cannot seriously think those things cost that much to make.... Shall we make it illegal to create a printer that detects third party or refilled cartridges and refuses to use them?
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
I agree that all devices should be repairable (by the end user, even!).
But this should not be law.
It should be up to the customers to decide what devices they want and with what features or anti-features.
Because innovation is always a trade off: want a slim phone? Well you'll have to sacrifice some durability to get it etc..
So it should be up to the customers to decide what a good trade off is.
I picked a phone for being waterproof, and I think all of those have non-removable batteries. Waterproof was more important to me than a removable battery.
Why should my choice be illegal because you don't like it? Are there no phones with removable batteries? I'm failing to see the issue here.
Because (a) you can have both, it's just the manufacturers have no reason to do that as it means they can sell you a whole new phone when the battery degrades, and (b) we live in the same world, and waste is a thing that affects all of us.
It took me about 15 minutes to replace an "unreplaceable" iphone battery and the kit came with all the tools for 25USD.
It's fine if you don't like it. Just don't buy it. Why are Americans so bent on needing laws to prohibit anything they don't like even if they're not subject to it?
Also note, this law does nothing to the auto industry. My understanding from all the voices chattering on about owners' rights is that they're the prime offenders. So why is this getting high praise? A phone with a reasonably replaced battery and all the tools needed to do it for less than the cost of a single month's cell plan versus highly inflated parts prices (due to monopoly abuse) plus minimum mechanic fees for an object that costs tens of thousands of dollars.... I wonder who was bought here.
> Why does the government have to limit my choice?
To protect everyone else who is not an idiot. That's why.
I feel sorry for you that the stupid government doesn't allow you to buy toasters that burn down your house. Or drugs that poison you. Or foods that make you sick. It's such a shame really. But if you put your mind to it, I'm sure you can find ways to burn down your house, poison yourself or make yourself sick despite the nanny government trying to protect the rest of us from being f***ked by corporations.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
What's the threshold for 'easily'?
Like, without tools? That means all our phones will be bulky again. I don't want a phone like that. I hated that design, and I'll continue to hate it. I don't mind the possibility that I'll have to take my phone into a shop so someone can disassemble it and pop in a new battery any more than I mind taking my car into the shop so I can have something repaired. If I wanted to learn how to do those things, I would, and indeed, I can. iFixit makes kits so you can do it yourself, and people do it.
So I don't know that your wording makes it any better, except to possibly require companies to make phones that I feel are terrible by design.
I get that we don't agree on the design angle, but I don't want it legislated out of existence.
which is all consumers are asking for.
I'm assuming you're basically talking about Cell Phones, if you are not, please take the rest as issues I have with this law anyways.
1) If Consumers DEMANDED replaceable batteries in phones (or other devices) they would be BUYING them. If your choice was between iPhone 8 and something like an LG V20, they would abandon iPhones for LG. The problem is, that they want an iPhone first, battery second. THEY made the choice, and voted with their money. If Apple was losing BILLIONS to people who WANT removable batteries as a PRIMARY feature, they would make an iPhone with Removable Battery.
2)If Consumers DEMANDED replaceable batteries over other features like Water Proof/Resistant devices, then they would be BUYING them. Since it is makes devices MORE expensive to have WaterProof and Replaceable batteries than one or the other, and people are choosing lesser expensive single option devices (Waterproof, no replaceable battery vs replaceable battery and don't drop in the pool) the the market has spoken.
3) In almost ALL categories, there ARE options for having those features, while giving up others, and the relative price points for each are such that the Market is making cost/feature analysis as part of their buying choices is already available.
Conclusion: A law like the one proposes removes choice and replaces it with draconian rules that the Market has ALREADY rejected with the voting dollars. This is the problem with the whole "There ought to be a law" people, is that they want what they want, but are UNWILLING to do it for themselves. This is the choice of the Consumer, not the state.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.