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."

Comments

Re: wording

[bigwheel]

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.

Re: wording

[Archangel Michael]

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.