Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Massachusetts Senate Passes Resolution To Do In-Depth Study On Right-To-Repair (vice.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the time-to-get-serious dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard: On July 25, the Massachusetts Senate approved a Resolution that would create a special commission that would research the feasibility of forcing device manufacturers to treat customers and independent repair shops the same as officially licensed repair outlets. According to the proposed study, that means providing customers and independent repair shops with "repair technical updates, diagnostic software, service access passwords, updates and corrections to firmware, and related documentation." Gay Gordon Byrne, executive director of The Repair Organization, helped push the bill in 2012 and has been working to extend the law to tech companies ever since. "This is just one step in a series of steps that will end Repair Monopolies for technology products. I'm thrilled," Byrne told me in an email about the pending study.

The Resolution to create the study group still needs to pass the Massachusetts House, but the session ends July 31 so right-to-repair watch dogs won't have to wait long to see if it goes forward. The proposed makeup of the study commission shows that the legislature is serious about the issue and also reveals how big tech's repair monopoly is about much more than just being able to open up your iPhone without voiding the warranty. The legislature wants the study commission to include 23 members, including various members of the legislature but also a wealth of experts in various tech fields. They want someone from the Massachusetts Farm Bureau, a medical device manufacturer, an expert on electronic waste recycling, someone who repairs complex medical equipment, an intellectual property lawyer, a cyber security expert, a local farmer, and various other experts and citizens affected or knowledgeable about the right-to-repair.

108 comments

  1. Right to repair? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 5, Funny

    Tell me, Mr. Anderson... what good is a right to repair... if your devices are glued shut?

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
    1. Re:Right to repair? by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      Next will be heat resistant glue and ultrasonic welding

    2. Re:Right to repair? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      glued shut *and* no replacement parts available other than chinese knockoffs that are never quite right.

      a 'right to repair' law needs to go 'bigger'. not only should you have the right to repair your own stuff, but manufacturers need to make stuff that *can* be repaired, can be taken apart. can be put back together... AND have actual factory original or equivalent parts available.

      ya know: design and build stuff to last, not just to last-until-the-warranty-expires. REDUCE is the first step of reduce-reuse-recycle. companies have forgotten that first, and very significant bit in the chase for bigger profits. replacing your phone every year isn't helping. having a phone that lasts 5+ years, than another 3 as someone else's refurbished used phone, would.

    3. Re:Right to repair? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh you have the RIGHT to repair it though, don't expect them to make it any easier. Secret BMW codes and tools included, you have the RIGHT to reverse-engineer a hack and do it wrong for mortal money...

    4. Re:Right to repair? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      glued shut *and* no replacement parts available other than chinese knockoffs that are never quite right.

      a 'right to repair' law needs to go 'bigger'. not only should you have the right to repair your own stuff, but manufacturers need to make stuff that *can* be repaired, can be taken apart. can be put back together...

      Government should largely stay out of the free market, save where staying out clearly makes things worse.

      There are four areas that come to mind:

      1. Areas that will cost the average consumer significantly more money in the long term without government interference. For instance, if a house was built without any codes at all, and it requires 50k work the day after you move in, well that is bad. Building codes are a reasonable interference by government. Now you could argue how far they need to go. That is a separate issue..

      2. Areas that will cost the average consumer quality of life or health. For instance pollution has real costs to quality of life and health.

      3. As a way to encourage minimal labour standards. If a country has slave labour, well you don't buy from them at all. If a company has a sixty hour work week, maybe that justifies a tariff.

      4. National defence. We should be able to build needed defence items with goods and services available from resources that are likely to be available in reasonable future scenarios. Basically if you have a significant chance of a conflict with a country, you have to make sure that conflict won't cut you off from materials you need. That doesn't mean everything has to be made in America. It just means you need a plan.

      The right to repair thing would fit in with 1,2, and possibly 4, but the presumption is on non interference. If that group can make a solid case for why interference will benefit the consumer, then it is fair game, though you'd have to revisit it once you got some solid data in.

      For instance, it may be fine if something is non repairable if it is cheap enough, and recyclable.... It may even be fine if it is costing the consumer twice as much, provided that the devices are continuing to improve. Now if nothing is improving and your still paying twice as much that is arguable a legitimate place for government interference, but again the presumption is it is usually better not to interfere.

    5. Re:Right to repair? by another_twilight · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You list 4. but how is a military normally a 'free market' item? If you include it, what about other things like infrastructure and utilities? Surely they are better handled by some form of co-operative or government?

      What about regulation of shared resources to avoid tragedy of the commons (so indirect involvement in markets via environmental protection for eg)?
      And here I'm not just talking about things that cause direct health impact, but indirect problems like overgrazing common fields or destroying parkland.

      If the latter, then why not legislation that seeks to limit the waste inherent in manufacture of unrepairable products.

      The idealised free market doesn't work well for long term costs. We have cognitive biases that discount long term costs vs short term gains. This is an area where an individual, with multiple pressures for limited expenditure may choose a cheaper, non-repairable product because the cost to them is only going to be realised over a term that makes it hard to properly assess on a personal level, but which is distinct at a social or governmental level.

    6. Re:Right to repair? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see. You're a drone pilot who goes to work each day and blows up Toyota pickup trucks full of ragheads? Cool!

    7. Re:Right to repair? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Government should stay out of the free market.

      For the non-free market, like when a company has a patent (monopoly) on something, it should be a bit different.
      If your device uses a patent (monopoly on something) then you must have a sane way for 3'rd parties to repair the device.
      Something similar to: "If your device uses a patent then it must make repairs possible for ANY 3'rd party. Any internally used (existing) debugging software must be made available. Existing schematics must be made available.. Spare-parts must not exceed cost of production+s/h+10%.". Spare-parts for the device must be made available as long as the patent is valid.
      If limits on distribution of above information/spare-parts to only include owners of the device would be fine.
      Example 1:
      Phone-screen breaks. You send in the broken screen (if they want) and you get a original replacement.
      Unrepairable device breaks (filled with glued or similar). You send in the device and you get a replacement back.
      Company decides that it does not want to produce the spare-parts any more so they invalidate the patent(s) and allows anyone to produce replacement-parts. Or it may keep the patent(s) and just licence out the spare-part production with the 10% profit margin to a 3'rd party.

      Government should only pass generic laws for the rest, like in the following examples:
      - Cars sold after a certain date must not expel more than Y pollution.. where the law passed is for 4-5 years into the future.
      - Power production is not allowed to release more than Y co2 (or any other substance) per produced Kwh.
      - Electronic devices may not contain dangerous elements X,Y,Z. after specified date.
      - Devices with element Q in them must display this clearly on the packaging and on the device.

      Anything more than this should be between the consumer and the producer.

    8. Re: Right to repair? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have a situation in the market right now with John Deere farm equipment where the manufacturer is litigating under DMCA any repair service or individual that tries to repair their own equipment. More importantly, there are several companies that take active steps to mitigate or even eliminate after-market repairs of their equipment (I.e. Apple) through channels they do not authorize. This is done by threatening OEM suppliers who could provide replacement parts.

    9. Re: Right to repair? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So don't buy John Deere equipment, buy Mahindra.

    10. Re:Right to repair? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You list 4. but how is a military normally a 'free market' item? If you include it, what about other things like infrastructure and utilities? Surely they are better handled by some form of co-operative or government?

      What about regulation of shared resources to avoid tragedy of the commons (so indirect involvement in markets via environmental protection for eg)?

      They tend to be interrelated and you can establish other sets that have similar coverage. Military was called out since you can't fully expect the free market to plan for what happens if the free market is disrupted.

      Regulation of shared resources could fall under 1, or could be its own. You wouldn't regulate it just because it was shared, but because the cost of not regulating it was substantially higher in some way. Again it is a high bar to get past, since government tends to add indirect costs, so the benefits need to exceed those indirect costs...

    11. Re:Right to repair? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Couple issues.

      Your definition of the duties of government are probably accurate, but you fail to define what a Government is or what level of government these limitations should fall on.

      Would these limits be placed on the World, Federal, State, County or Municipal governments?

      For instance it would be unreasonable for the Federal Government to pass a law forcing all citizens to use six foot leashes on their dogs, but well within the rights of a city to do the same. Conversely a state government shouldn't pass a law against transporting certain hazardous materials across their borders but a Federal Government must regulate that.

      Different levels of government exist because regulations must exist at different levels. The feds have no business telling me what type of toilet I can buy, but the county does and must. It's their pipes after all.

    12. Re:Right to repair? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The consumer has already spoken. They do not desire state violence directed against manufactures in order to have devices repairable since they currently purchase those devices with the knowledge they are not repairable.

    13. Re: Right to repair? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This should be up voted to infinity. They want to buy John Deere because they are better, and they want to enact state violence against the company to force them to change business practices that bring them what they wanted in the first place.

    14. Re:Right to repair? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Working on the west coast for a 3 letter agency and you have hearing loss?
      GORDON COLE, IS THAT YOU??

    15. Re:Right to repair? by giggleloop · · Score: 1

      "since government tends to add indirect costs, so the benefits need to exceed those indirect costs..." You mean like paying its employees a decent wage, implementing proper safety protocols and not cutting corners?

    16. Re:Right to repair? by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      You list 4. but how is a military normally a 'free market' item? If you include it, what about other things like infrastructure and utilities? Surely they are better handled by some form of co-operative or government?

      Interestingly in the US when electric utilities first started they were not monopolies. The strung their own wires, resulting in multiple sets serving the same area. The utilities pushed for regulation since they couldn't make a lot of money when you had multiple providers competing for the same customers. In exchange for a monopoly they limited their service area and could not sell across the boundaries except to the other utilities to handle excess demand.

      Phone companies competed early on as well, resulting in challenges to connect to people on competing services.

      Of course, competition also meant that sparsely populated areas didn't get service since it was unprofitable, resulting in the government passing laws to drive rural electrification.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    17. Re:Right to repair? by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      You list 4. but how is a military normally a 'free market' item? If you include it, what about other things like infrastructure and utilities? Surely they are better handled by some form of co-operative or government?

      In the United States, basic infrastructure was included as part of the role of the federal government. In a time before the Internet, telephones, and electricity, communication consisted entirely of written letters. That was pretty much the only basic infrastructure that existed in the late 18th century (water supply and sewers were starting to show up, but they were still highly localized systems), so the Constitution includes post offices and roads as part of the federal government.

      When asked why the federal government should be able to regulate the Internet, my response is that the Internet is simply the modern form of the postal system.

    18. Re: Right to repair? by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      Where can the consumer buy an easily repairable smartphone that runs an operating system with a large variety of applications?

    19. Re:Right to repair? by Immerman · · Score: 2

      One thing to consider with "right to repair" movements, is that they usually don't address "non-repairable" items - things where manufacturing decisions make repair difficult or impossible, though that's certainly worth addressing, especially in the long term.

      Usually the primary target is "dealer-only repair" - cars, farm equipment, appliances, etc., where they *are* designed to be repaired, but access to the necessary parts and tools is restricted to those who have preferential relationships with the manufacturer. This has gotten especially bad lately as many manufacturers have taken lessons from printer-ink sales tactics, where gratuitous electronics and copy-protection schemes are added for the express purpose of locking out off-brand replacements, and even servicing.

      When you get into manufacturing repairability decisions, there's another thing that might be worth considering as well - right-to-recycle. China has stopped accepting the world's plastic waste in part because we've made it too difficult to recycle by doing things like bonding multiple layers of incompatible materials together - e.g. plastic, paper, and/or foil laminates, making it effectively impossible to recycle even remotely cost-effectively. (Another part is that we've gotten really bad about sorting our recyclable trash, with similar results, but that's a different topic altogether)

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    20. Re:Right to repair? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is actually a bigger problem than you think. Expected service life is a key factor in pricing and a large part of engineering. If you build a hinge that lasts longer than the door it is attached to, you have overbuilt the hinge. The extra life of that hinge in no way benefits the original system that you designed. You're only helping the salvage operations profits. You will never see a dime of that. It's all part of the price equation. There's likely no material barriers stopping these manufacturers from making phones that last for 10+ years. The problem they have is that the market probably wont accept the price point that these manufacturers would have to set to make sure that they are still in business 10 years later when people need new phones.

      The argument could be made that the it takes more time to design something that is easily serviceable as well. Presumably you would not only need to test and optimize assembly like the current state, but also disassembly. As far as cell phones are concerned I think you can expect some pretty steep price hikes if you get what you ask for.

      Manufacturers could pick up some of the lost profits by selling parts. New businesses would start to help those who can't do it themselves. The result would be a shift of some of the profits from the manufacturers down to those small businesses. That is a hard sell to a manufacturer. I'm not saying what your proposing CAN'T work, what I am saying is that we have wholesale adopted a completely different business model in the electronics industry as a whole. This kind of sea change isn't likely.

    21. Re:Right to repair? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, working for AAA is NOT a national defense agency, Bill.

      CAP === 'banjos'

    22. Re:Right to repair? by desdinova+216 · · Score: 1

      but we can't make them repairable and THINNER

    23. Re:Right to repair? by desdinova+216 · · Score: 1

      like the Yogi said "It's deja vu all over again"

    24. Re:Right to repair? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn, Libertarians are dumb

    25. Re:Right to repair? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Government should largely stay out of the free market, save where staying out clearly makes things worse.

      Yeah, because the free-market has done such an excellent job of addressing the problem.

    26. Re:Right to repair? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Non-repairable products can cause harm, thus a government has a vested interest in paying attention. Non-repairable means you have to buy new products, and increased economic burden. If a consumer has purchased a product, then that product belongs to the consumer and all rights by the manufacturer have ceased in this regard; preventing the consumer from repairing is an attempt by the manufacturer to continue owning the product. Being unable to replace batteries, the most commonly needed repairs, causes unnecessary waste and disposal of hazardous materials. Being made the way they are it is nearly impossible to recycle or separate the batteries from many of these products which will inevitably end up in landfill. Recycling is generally not done because it costs too much to do so effectively, and the problem is often exported to third world countries.

      There are some cases where owner repair should be prohibited, such as in the cases of safety. However independent repair shops should be allowed the right to do the repairs.

    27. Re:Right to repair? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      A free market has been proven through history to not function without regulation. A free market cannot exist without it also being a fair market, and companies have rarely offered the "fair" part voluntarily. The goal of corporations is to maximize profits by any means necessary that they can get away with, and laws step in to make sure that they can't get get away anything.

      When left to their own devices we have seen in the past the common sale of unsafe and dangerous products including products that have caused injury and death, products that did not perform as described, rampant pollution, child labor, mistreatment of workers, bullying of smaller market players, etc.

  2. What's there to study? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You buy something, it's yours. Why is it more complicated than that?

    1. Re:What's there to study? by another_twilight · · Score: 1

      What did you buy?

      Just the item, or should there exist an obligation by the manufacturer to provide information to assist others in repairing the device they sold? Like specifications, data sheets, codes etc.

      This kind of circles back to some of the original reasons for encouraging patents - so that inventions didn't remain a mystery when the inventor died, but that their ideas could go on to be developed. In exchange, they are granted a limited period to monopolise that invention or idea and are protected by law.

      This attempt to balance the obligations and rights of a manufacturer so that they and the market they wish to sell to both benefit is what this sort of thing is about.

  3. Tesla ban by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hopefully this leads to a ban of all Tesla’s since they made them illegal to repair yourself.

  4. How the car industry does it? by snikulin · · Score: 1

    I honestly don't know. If I establish my own repair shop for Teslas, can I freely buy all the required HW and SW from Tesla Inc?

    Thanks!

    1. Re:How the car industry does it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can buy all the parts and information including scan tools for any car brand except a piece of shit Tesla. Because Tesla wants to over charge to repair their poorly built shit boxes.

      Here’s some good sites for information.
      https://www.prodemand.com
      http://www.bbbind.com/free-tsb/

      Parts
      https://www.rockauto.com

      Scan Tools
      https://www.snapon.com/EN
      https://www.auteltech.com
      https://www.otctools.com

    2. Re:How the car industry does it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a moron. Tesla made his own battery TYPE in addition to a brand new proprietary design that isn't a standard like OBDII or something. You're a moron. Also Tesla is a boutique so of course they overcharge for that! MORON!

    3. Re:How the car industry does it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Making excuses for a Tesla, the Apple of car company's.

    4. Re:How the car industry does it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, Tesla is fucked now. The point is lost on you however that regular run-of-the-kragen tools are going to have zero usefulness on a Tesla because they're different enough, boutique enough that is the case. You're a moron.

    5. Re:How the car industry does it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A: You can diagnose and repair any car but Tesla because of overpriced proprietary features.
      B: A is a moron you can't diagnose and repair a Tesla because of overpriced proprietary features.

      See the problem?

    6. Re:How the car industry does it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      one Tesla to rule them all !!!

      Would really weigh down on the amount of different spare parts that would need to be kept in stock.

    7. Re:How the car industry does it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, EU has this to say:
      "Easy and clear access to information on vehicle repair and maintenance (RMI) is key to guaranteeing free competition on the vehicle aftermarket. Manufacturers must ensure that independent operators have easy, restriction-free, and standardised access to information on the repair and maintenance of vehicles. Discrimination with respect to authorised dealers and repair workshops is not allowed."

      https://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/automotive/technical-harmonisation/vehicle-repair-maintenance_en

    8. Re:How the car industry does it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? I’m pretty sure a jack a breaker bar and a socket are all I need to fix a bunch of stuff on a Tesla.

  5. Better include cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Most modern cars store their configuration in encrypted CCF files - usually over the CANbus network in the engine management unit - and you have to buy a decryption key for hundreds (or even thousands) of dollars if you want to change anything.

    e.g.: Want to replace the pathetic factory fitted halogen headlamps with HID or even laser-phosphorous headlamps? The new ones won't even turn on until you update the encrypted CCF to tell it what type of headlamp they are.

    1. Re:Better include cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why most decent aftermarket headlamp kits will present a suitable resistance to the engine management so it doesn't even know it isn't fitted with stock bulbs.

    2. Re:Better include cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "Most modern cars store their configuration in encrypted CCF files - usually over the CANbus network in the engine management unit - and you have to buy a decryption key for hundreds (or even thousands) of dollars if you want to change anything."

      by encryption you mean hexadecimal? or do you mean the mapping as to which byte refers to which setting? Ive been able to pull the configuration hex files from most european cars since 2000 the trick is finding an accurate mapping of the variables when you dont have the diagnostic tools which do it automatically and make it look pretty with icons and check boxes.

      Cars already are repairable by the consumer and all of the software required to do so is available to purchase. This is not like john deere which will not sell any of their diagnostic equipment at all and forces farmers to go to their dealers for service thus creating a monopoly situation where john deere can charge whatever they want. The other side of the argument when it comes to cars is that the cost of the diagnostic equipment is there to make sure that the average person with little to no knowledge about cars and the electronics inside of them don't go poking around and changing settings that could potentially damage the vehicle. You have to realise that alot of these diagnostic systems are there for trained professionals who understand all of the functions of the vehicle as well as carry insurance in the case of mistakes that cause serious problems with the vehicle. So while you are complaining about the COST of being able to repair your vehicle you are still able to repair it or change anything you want, the manufacturers just make it hard enough that the average person doesnt go screwing around in there just because they can. This is not a bad thing in any shape, it protects consumers from themselves as well as potentially creates small businesses, after all if headlight replacement is a common enough problem then it is an easy business write-off to purchase all of the tools/equipment that you need which is much different than cellphones or other modern day electronics where manufacturers sell neither the manuals nor the tools. The right to repair is not about the consumers individual ability to repair their stuff but their ability to be able to go to an independent repair shop thus creating competition in the market for repairs, it also is to stop manufactures from monopolistic behavior like bricking devices that were repaired at an independent shop.

      TLDR: you can already repair your own vehicle as parts are readily available as well as manuals. Giving access to the electronics to everyone would cause more problems than it would solve. They make the barrier just high enough that anyone who is going to cross it has a good idea of what they are doing.

    3. Re:Better include cars by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      TLDR: you can already repair your own vehicle as parts are readily available as well as manuals. Giving access to the electronics to everyone would cause more problems than it would solve.

      There is still room for improvement here. Changing settings in various computers requires secrets; to get into modules far enough to change interesting settings you typically need a dealer ID and a password. Or, someone has to dump the rom, disassemble it, etc. Nobody should have to go that far to make some legal changes to their vehicle.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Better include cars by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      This study doesn't have to include cars. Right to Repair for cars was already passed in Massachusetts about 5 years ago. The purpose of the study is to determine if that law should be extended to other products.

    5. Re:Better include cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have to realise that alot of these diagnostic systems are there for trained professionals who understand all of the functions of the vehicle as well as carry insurance in the case of mistakes that cause serious problems with the vehicle..

      Completely false, and its very important to understand why if you own a car.
      The person that repairs cars at a Dealer is not a trained professional auto mechanic. Many people that have independent garages also do not have fully trained staff.
      Most require ASE training, but not full certification. ASE training teaches you mostly how to use the diagnostic equipment and some basic theory about subsystems such as brakes, fuel, and A/C.

      People that went to a trade school and have been repairing cars for more than 15 years are about as 'trained professional' as you can get.

      The former path produces someone that has learned a lot of info about test equipment and modern car technology.
      The latter path produces someone that has put hands on many different levels of technology and was able to determine problems by troubleshooting them.

  6. Nonsense. by Synonymous+Homonym · · Score: 1

    It is never illegal to repair anything you own. You may void the warranty by doing so, but that's not illegal.

    1. Re:Nonsense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Show me where I can buy a ball joint or a CV axel or tyrod or wheel bearing or etc... for a shit Tesla?

      For any other car, I can legally buy OEM, remanufactured or third party parts. For a shit Tesla it’s illegal to buy any replacement parts.

    2. Re: Nonsense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No it's not. That's not what that word means.

      Parts may be unavailable, but you could 3D print a part and use it.

      I think their big concern is the potential for electrocution in electric cars which really didn't exist in internal combustion engines, so they only make parts available to certified engineers.

      I'm not saying they are handling things perfectly, but these are legitimate concerns that need to be worked out.

    3. Re: Nonsense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It isnâ(TM)t illegal. Nobody wants to make them and the supppliers donâ(TM)t want to sell them.

    4. Re:Nonsense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Show me the law that says it is illegal to buy replacement parts for a Tesla.

      ffs

    5. Re: Nonsense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The electrocution angle is a red herring. A ic car is a dangerous thing. For instance a severe fire risk if the fuel system was to fail in certain ways and spray fuel onto a exhaust manifold for instance. But most people repair there systems without issue. We are just used to people doing it safely most of the time because there is 100 plus year history of people doing it.

    6. Re:Nonsense. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      For any other car, I can legally buy OEM, remanufactured or third party parts.

      There's lots of cases where that's not true, and there are parts that they won't sell you. Automakers discontinue parts before the suppliers are allowed to sell them directly on occasion, and before remans are generally available. Automakers have agreements with suppliers as to when they are allowed to sell the same parts to someone else. Sometimes there is little enough demand that everyone discontinues a part, and it's not particularly repairable, and then you have to wait for someone else to make a workalike.

      For a shit Tesla itâ(TM)s illegal to buy any replacement parts.

      Who told you that?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:Nonsense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plutonium and Heavy Water are generally not available at Wally Kart.
      So while technically not illegal to self-repair a Telsla, getting the basic
      ingredients are near impossible.

      CAP === 'screws'

    8. Re:Nonsense. by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 2

      It is never illegal to repair anything you own.

      Wow. You are literally 20 years out of date .

      Hey everyone, this guy hasn't even lived through Y2K yet!

      20 years. Oh boy, are you going to be in for a wild ride as you catch up. Remember that scene in Back to the Future when the kid tells the doc who the president is in 1985? Well, wen I hit you with the 2018 news, you're going to call me a liar, and I'll just be smugly smiling, temporarily forgetting my troubles because I got to meet a time traveler.

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
    9. Re: Nonsense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [citation needed]

      It’s is illegal for anyone to makes parts for Tesla’s shit cars due to the DMCA.

    10. Re:Nonsense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act

    11. Re: Nonsense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You wouldn't download a car.

    12. Re: Nonsense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tesla parts have firm ware embedded in them. If the computer detects non Tesla parts it bricks the car.

    13. Re:Nonsense. by Synonymous+Homonym · · Score: 1

      Because physical repairs fall under the purview of copyright.

      You seem to have no idea how law works.

  7. You ban those by rsilvergun · · Score: 3, Informative

    the study's the first step to that. They'll run numbers showing the cost to the taxpayer of devices that crap out on the user after a year or two and that can't be repaired by design. Once there's hard numbers it'll be harder for the companies to hide behind ambiguity like they do today.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re: You ban those by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Up until the states realize the windfall they receive in taxes due to constant re-purchasing of products at full market value which fail early and often.

    2. Re:You ban those by mysidia · · Score: 1

      the study's the first step to that. They'll run numbers showing the cost to the taxpayer of devices that crap out on the user after a year or two and that can't be repaired by design

      Excellent.... the more studies on this subject, the better... We need the public and legislators to more clearly see a mounting pile of evidence; especially discussing the history of new manufacturer "security" measures and anti-analysis tricks (Consumable/limited-life components and storage media soldered on, replacement part supply channel restrictions -- misuse of IPR rights to disrupt the purchase of aftermarket repair components, excessive secrecy, self-bricking devices.... Chips that erase themselves if you attempt to read, etc.) that seem designed to impede legitimate knowledge, access, and ability repair modify or reprogram.

  8. The whole, you dont own it, your only renting bs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Also needs to be addressed

    If they say "yes you have the right to repair your property" resellers/manufactures will simply say your renting the device, you don't own it.
    So you cant touch it as it is not yours.

  9. Hardware based monopolies need to go also by wierd_w · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Take for instance, hardware that is more than capable of running other things (take a nintendo switch for instance. Without the locked boot loader, it can run Linux just like any other tegra based system. Works great doing it too.) that is crippled by its retailer/OEM to only run a single ecosystem, designed to be locked down hard, where there is no viable alternative market space for software.

    I am picking on Nintendo here, because of how they chose to combine hardware IDs with user IDs for their services. (Each console has a unique console certificate that is used to encrypt the eMMC module, preventing you from simply replacing it, even though it is modular-- for starters. This certificate is also used to ban the console if it is modified in any way nintendo does not like, even if those modifications are redacted/expunged.)

    suppose for a moment that you purchase a second hand switch from say-- ebay, or a used item from Amazon. The console works perfectly fine, but has a banned certificate. (Or, it does not work properly, and has a bad eMMC module, which again, is modular.) You might have the right to repair the console, but you do not have access to the digital keys needed to replace or restore the eMMC's contents to factory defaults, and you do not have a means of compelling Nintendo to unban the console if they did so after doing the restoration.

    These kinds of things are direct consequences of hardware based distribution control mechanisms, and are wholly incompatible with right to repair, and first sale doctrine type protections.

    If the US government is going to start championing for consumer rights in the forms of right to repair type regulations, they are going to have to put a foot down on hardware based DRM mechanisms, which imply a fixed ecosystem for that hardware, and a sole point-of-authority on legitimate repair and return to service.

    That means:

    No locked boot loaders
    No hardware unique certificates or identifiers
    No hardware encrypted storage (software encrypted is fine)

    Good luck getting companies like console makers to abide by those. They will tell you all about how those restrictions are absolutely required for their industry, and the like.

    In short, the government has to either decide to shit or get off the pot on that. There is no compromise. Either those things are made illegal, and right to repair rules-- or right to repair dies, and locked hardware stays a thing.

    1. Re:Hardware based monopolies need to go also by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good luck convincing the USA to go it alone by doing away with IMEI numbers on mobile phones, VINs on car parts, etc.

    2. Re:Hardware based monopolies need to go also by wierd_w · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I should probably clarify--

      Hardware unique identifiers that are used as a supply chain or service identification lockout.

      A simple identity tag is not what is intended. A tag that gets automatically interrogated by a fixed and central authority for the purposes of denial of service/blacklisting-- that is what I mean.

      A VIN number is fine, as long as the VIN number is not part of a centrally enforced denial of service/tamper detection system.

    3. Re:Hardware based monopolies need to go also by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      Take for instance, hardware that is more than capable of running other things (take a nintendo switch for instance. Without the locked boot loader, it can run Linux just like any other tegra based system. Works great doing it too.) that is crippled by its retailer/OEM to only run a single ecosystem, designed to be locked down hard, where there is no viable alternative market space for software.

      The solution is simple; don't buy a Nintendo console if they won't do what you want. Buy one that does. I do not like DRM either and avoid whenever possible buying stuff that has it. As for single ecosystems, it's again a choice to be made - lock in or go elsewhere?

      first sale doctrine type protections.

      First sale does not mean that whatever you sell still has all the features available to the original buyer, unless the manufacturer specifically states so such as a transferable warranty, etc. Even the doctrine of first sale is not absolute, but varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

      In many ways the right to repair, especially for consumer electronics, is a chimera. Sure, manufacturers many be forced to make available parts, manuals, software diagnostics, etc. but the costs may be so high that it is not economical for a third party shop to buy them because the may never recoup the costs, and /or the cost to fix after you buy parts and add in some labor is so high that consumers simply chose to forgo repairs and buy a new device. Individuals would still be locked out because the costs of manuals etc. would probably be much more than simply buying a new device. If the market is big enough their will be third party tools sold, such as is done with automotive diagnostic software. A small subset would get bootleg copies of the manufacturers software to mod their stuff, such as is done with BMW's diagnostic and coding software.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    4. Re:Hardware based monopolies need to go also by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      A VIN number is fine, as long as the VIN number is not part of a centrally enforced denial of service/tamper detection system.

      But it is. It's just not remotely enforced. If the government notices that your VIN doesn't match then they can get quite upset. There is a procedure for re-VIN, if you are swapping parts around. For example, dropping a body from one truck (which is where the VIN is recorded) onto another truck's chassis (which is where the emissions equipment is located — the powertrain is considered a chassis component, not a body component, for relatively obvious reasons.*) If you don't follow the legal procedure, then you can be punished harshly, including loss of vehicle.

      * Unit bodies are another issue but let's keep it simple, slashdot

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:Hardware based monopolies need to go also by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Hardware unique identifiers that are used as a supply chain or service identification lockout.

      Why? They are needed for anti-theft and to discourage trafficking. If someone steals my cellphone; I am happy that I can get my cellphone carrier to add the IMEI to a blacklist, which means no end user will benefit from my device having been stolen.

    6. Re:Hardware based monopolies need to go also by Aristos+Mazer · · Score: 1

      I agree that hardware locks and right to repair are in conflict, but I don't agree with your solution. We need another way.

      I buy some products specifically because they are locked down, which means I can trust what is on them to a greater degree than something that can be reprogrammed. I push some family members towards the products that are restricted in functionality because I know they can't mess them up -- not by some accidental button pushing, not by downloading something from the network. And for security, signed unique certs before the software can run on this device that cannot be replaced? There are definitely times when I want that -- and on some of my personal devices.

      I very much appreciate the walled garden for a wide range of operations, and I definitely appreciate a tool that does exactly what it is designed to do. I also like having other devices that are wide open. They are two different markets -- making one market illegal would not serve my interest.

    7. Re:Hardware based monopolies need to go also by R33P · · Score: 1

      The only way consoles can be sold for their current (loss leader) prices is to have consumers make up the difference buying games. The manufacturers need to be able to predict that X consoles + Y games per console = profit. If you remove Y, then X consoles = loss. That's why they don't want you using your console for anything but licensed games.

      So how about we keep that system, which works well for millions of consumers, and add a system where you can purchase a legitimate hardware unlock for Z. It would be trivial for manufacturers to work out Z, since it's essentially the same as their cut of the Y games per console. Then you could purchase a console, and if you wanted to unlock it, you could do so without any negative consequences. It would just cost you more, since you bought the console for a subsidized price to begin with.

  10. Some manufacturers do have a point sometimes by jonwil · · Score: 0

    There ARE cases where manufacturers have valid reasons to want to withhold information.

    Example:
    If I loose the keys to my car, in most cases I can go to the dealer (which depending on the car may involve having the car towed there), prove that I am who I say I am and that I own the car, pay a nice chunk of money and get a new set of keys made and programmed and paired to the car.

    If the car manufacturers are forced to release all the info to people other than dealers, it becomes possible for criminals to buy all the tools, parts and manuals to do the exact thing as above minus the ID checks and then use that to access and steal cars.

    And that's just one example.

    1. Re:Some manufacturers do have a point sometimes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes yes The great "but if we don't lock them down the criminals win!" argument.

      Whenever I hear that I always substitute computer for whatever needs to be locked down. It makes me laugh.

      As far as your example goes, criminals have been able to dupe keys since the electronic keys were duplicated. It's just a damned signal after all.

      Jeeze, I thought this was the place for nerds.

    2. Re:Some manufacturers do have a point sometimes by flink · · Score: 2

      If that's possible, then they've designed a bad keyless entry system. The security should be contingent on a secret held in the key dongle, not the process to pair it.

    3. Re:Some manufacturers do have a point sometimes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I loose the keys to my car

      You really should tighten those keys.

    4. Re:Some manufacturers do have a point sometimes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mustang 2015 (I'm sure most Fords from this time are same).

      If you have 2 key dongles, you can program a 3rd yourself in a matter of a minute.
      If you have 1 key dongle, requires trip to dealership and $100+ just to program second key, the second key is $90+ in addition.
      Car comes with 2 keys.

      You lose one, guess what?

    5. Re:Some manufacturers do have a point sometimes by tsqr · · Score: 1

      I Iost one of my car key dongles and found I had a choice. I could go to the dealer, pay a lot of money for a replacement, and pay a lot more for the programming; or, I could go to an auto locksmith, pay less for the replacement, and have the programming thrown in at no extra charge.

      Going to a dealer is almost always a poor choice if an alternative is available.

    6. Re:Some manufacturers do have a point sometimes by mysidia · · Score: 1

      it becomes possible for criminals to buy all the tools, parts and manuals to do the exact thing as above minus the ID checks and then use that to access and steal cars.

      No..... They can be secure about those things without making it hard for drivers to program their own keys, after having it cut by a professional.

      The ability for a service center or locksmith to make keys to your car stems from the fact that the manufacturers have a global database containing each vehicle they manufactured AND the keycode the factory locks shipped with, AND various dealers share access to the database through a subscription service that their service centers, independent service centers, and automotive locksmiths are allowed to subscribe to. So the dealer has access to this subscription service where they type in the Manufacturer, Model, VIN number and some other details, and a query is made to the corresponding database that retrieves the required codes.

      Unfortunately.... if the Keyfob has an immobilizer, or is one of those fancy new all-digital keys... Typically it is locked down so only the authorized dealer can program a key; the Locksmith can access the database and cut a physical key --- OR even change the physical locks on the car to a new customer-specific code that's now different from factory, but the manufacturers are ridiculous about their programming procedures to learn a new set of keys, and there's really no legitimate excuse for this situation ---- other than they want to charge exorbitant rates like $1000 to replace a key.

      Also, since a car thief is unlikely to have a service center, they can't subscribe to the database and get the keycodes. Even if they did it'd be a super-inefficient way to steal cars, and someone would put two and two together that keycodes were being requested for cars by a certain subscriber that then turned up stolen.

    7. Re:Some manufacturers do have a point sometimes by Immerman · · Score: 1

      The pairing process is generally what puts the secret into the key dongle (or alternately, the corresponding secret into the car)

      If the secret is hard-wired into the dongle, then there would be no way to make a duplicate key at all.

      If the process for pairing the two is public, what stops me from walking up to your car with a new key, pairing the two, and driving it away?

      You could design a process that requires a valid key to clone, but that tends to make it extremely expensive to create a new key when the last old key is lost, which happens.

      I'm not trying to argue in favor of manufacturer exclusivity here - criminals will get their hands on the process regardless, but I think you're glossing over some serious technical details.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    8. Re:Some manufacturers do have a point sometimes by Immerman · · Score: 1

      So, spend a minute with your new car and make a third key, what's the problem?

      Once upon a time, new computers came with reinstall discs to get it back to factory settings when the hard drive eventually failed or was upgraded. Nowadays it tends to be just a hidden partition on the disk instead - which is lost along with the rest of the drive in the case of a hardware failure (or sufficiently severe software one) They (usually) offer a convenient route to make your own physical discs, though I've seen systems that restrict you to doing so only once (what's the logic on *that* one?)

      It's a cheapskate move designed to exploit people's laziness and procrastination for profit, but at least the responsible owner has an easy option to protect themselves from it.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    9. Re:Some manufacturers do have a point sometimes by Rhipf · · Score: 1

      This example shows the main reason manufacturers don't want to release repair information. Do you really think it costs $90 to make the new key (even $30 would be highly stretching the manufacturing costs)? Is it really so hard to program a new key that it should cost $100 to do it? If the manufacturer didn't have a monopoly on these items I'm sure the cost would be significantly less.

  11. Patents by alzoron · · Score: 1

    I believe that at the very least in exchange for a patent the patent holder should be required to provide complete documentation and detailed schematics. That alone would go a very long way to help people repair their own devices and I believe it also fits perfectly with the spirit of patent law.

    1. Re:Patents by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      I believe that at the very least in exchange for a patent the patent holder should be required to provide complete documentation and detailed schematics.

      In theory, they do. In order to be granted a patent, the inventor is required to include in the patent description everything that a person in the same industry ("person of ordinary skill in the art") would need to know to build the invention.

      Whether or not that requirement is being properly enforced by the USPTO, well, that's a separate question.

  12. What that really means is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Massachusetts legislators mutter about right-to-repair so that manufacturers and their lobby will stump up more campaign dollars.

  13. Let's not confuse it with actually doing something by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    This is a resolution to initiate a study: the government equivalent of your parents saying "sure, we'll think about it".

    That's all.
    The anti-repair lobbying money won't start substantially until the study is completed.

    And let's be totally candid here. The people cheering this study only look forward to it because they expect to be validated. Largely, they don't want simply to reveal facts...unless those facts agree with them.

    What if the study actually determines that the best net economic result is to block private repair? Today's ardent supporters will just say it was rigged anyway.

    --
    -Styopa
  14. LANDFILL - Early product retirement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whoops, no security updates for you - time for a new phone / Android Tablet whatever. Most simply turf product. Landfill is evil and unethical.
    One solution is a 20% state tax surcharge on brandname products deemed repair costly or containing repair defeats.

    End of life products or no longer supported - should have the gates thrown open - recycling, reverse engineering, anything and everything exposed - all legal - 3rd party software resellers al legal. The reason this does not happen now - is secret non-support agreements.

    If expensive watch company wont sell watchband parts, glass bezels or crowns to qualified people - they deserve copy cats and loss product monopoly. Ditto for Cameras and software.

    1. Re:LANDFILL - Early product retirement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is the first sane solution proposed. If a product is no longer being supported by the manufacture, then all the artificial laws created to foster innovation are put to rest on that particular product - No DMCA, No copyright, no patent.

      Nintendo does not want to release back and shelved titles, emulators.
      Disney sits on artistic work without release, copyright ends.

  15. renting = landlord pay for repairs that will fix by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 2

    renting = landlord pay for repairs that will fix it.

  16. Should be called FSF Act by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 3, Informative

    The idea that the client or purchaser of a product should have access to repair or to modify a product is the foundation of the Gnu Public License, the software licensing model published by the Free Software Foundation, whose business offices are in Massachusetts. It's also a state where the legislature mandated that government documents be in open formats That was around 2005, and led to profound political hardball, such as the creation of the mislabeled "Open Office XML" format, created by Microsoft by get past the new laws and which, functionally, Microsoft ignores to continue with proprietary and unstable document formats in its flagship "Office" products..

    It will be fascinating to see this play out in a state with that kind of legislative history.

    1. Re:Should be called FSF Act by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In some cases, right-to-repair (or modify) is in conflict with other laws, specifically in the emissions and safety regulations areas. Another reason for anti-right-to-repair stances from companies is liability related. They don't want to have to warranty stuff that other people modify, and they don't want to get sued when someone changes something that ends up hurting or killing someone. I think those are reasonable concerns and there are potential solutions to a lot of these things. It isn't as easy as just passing right-to-repair laws. A lot of other areas need to be addressed to make it work as well.

  17. What if there's another way to look at it? by sabbede · · Score: 1
    Consider this: In a capitalist democracy everybody is a market player and everyone is a voter. Free markets generate their own feedback and control mechanisms, the "invisible hand" which can be seen as a rule-making emergent property. But markets are limited in the scope of participant behaviors that it can control as it is but one piece of the economy which is but one piece of society. When a problem arises in markets that cannot be resolved by normal market forces, market participants come together to establish formal rules to correct it and consent to be subject to those rules. Thus, government.

    So, you can look at government as a product or extension of the free market's own corrective mechanisms. Or, because the sets of market and government participants are identical, you could say that both the market and government are just products of a free people working out the rules for how to be a society.

  18. Especially if the OEM won't repair it. by anon+mouse-cow-aard · · Score: 1

    Not a dupe, but highly correlated issue. Where the lifespan of equipment that can be responsibly used is limited by it's software support lifespan: https://ask.slashdot.org/story... Someone builds a 100K$ piece of equipment using a windows 7 workstation as a front-end, and in 2020 it's a paperweight?

    1. Re:Especially if the OEM won't repair it. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Apple won't even fix an iMac pro for money if you break it by opening it, let alone sell you the parts to do so...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  19. Just a signal to the lobbyists... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...that the "review period" is the appropriate time period to use campaign contributions to influence the "outcome" of the study

  20. Bootloader signing keys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will this force Samsung and the other android manufacturers to provide their signing keys so that people can run whatever they want without unlocking the bootloader and breaking widevine?

  21. Re:Let's not confuse it with actually doing someth by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

    This is a resolution to initiate a study: the government equivalent of your parents saying "sure, we'll think about it".

    That's all. The anti-repair lobbying money won't start substantially until the study is completed.

    It's doubtful that the lobbying would matter. When Right to Repair for cars went to a referendum, it got 86% support. I don't think they could spend enough advertising dollars to get 40% of the voters to change their minds.

    And let's be totally candid here. The people cheering this study only look forward to it because they expect to be validated. Largely, they don't want simply to reveal facts...unless those facts agree with them.

    What if the study actually determines that the best net economic result is to block private repair? Today's ardent supporters will just say it was rigged anyway.

    That would be the bigger concern. Not the rigged part, that's just your paranoia and/or projecting, but ignoring the results of the study. The results won't just be about out-of-pocket costs, though, but will include things like environmental impact. This is Massachusetts, where there's a much higher proportion of scientists and engineers than most other parts of the country, so they'll do more than a superficial study, and hopefully they'll follow the results.

  22. Re:Let's not confuse it with actually doing someth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What if the study actually determines that the best net economic result is to block private repair?

    And what if another study actually determines that Laws of Thermodynamics don't hold true?

    From what we know at present, that is possible only if Broken Window Fallacy is not considered. I don't think a study can beat the logic and stand.

  23. Government interference is what CAUSED the problem by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1

    Government should largely stay out of the free market, save where staying out clearly makes things worse.

    Well, that won't ever happen, because usually the biggest barrier to repairing things is copyright law with the bonus twist of DMCA. The government is already neck-deep in preventing a free market from happening.

    It is silly to suggest the government should abstain from putting loaded guns in manufacturers' faces saying "make it maintainable" ..

    ..Unless you're going to stop putting a loaded gun in consumers' faces saying "don't try to maintain that."

    --
    "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
  24. John Deere initiated the violence by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1

    They want to buy John Deere because they are better, and they want to enact state violence against the company

    John Deere went crying to mama and enacted state violence first, by using DMCA.

    Consumers are just asking to use retaliatory violence. The escalation to the use of force was initiated by John Deere.

    Don't go around punching people! But if someone punches you, you should strike back, and harder.

    --
    "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
  25. Good point by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    anyone else remember the suicide batteries in Capcom & Sega arcade boards? That should be illegal. Come up with a better way to do DRM than killing the board I spent $3-5k on.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  26. Doesn't matter if manufacturer throws them away by captaindomon · · Score: 1

    Right to repair doesn't matter when the manufacturer designs them as disposable, and their "warranty" is a "replacement warranty". You'll never be able to force manufacturers to design a crappier product held together by screws and zip ties, when it makes more sense to build one welded together or filled with epoxy. I don't want a phone, frankly, where you can remove the buttons with a screwdriver. I want a phone that is compact and feels really sturdy, like one piece, backed by the manufacturer being willing to just swap it out if it fails.

    --
    Just because I can hook a shark from a boat, I do no offer to wrestle it in the water.
  27. Re: renting = landlord pay for repairs that will f by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yes, we know what it should mean

    we deliberately use the word, with disparagement, to emphasize they want it both ways but with impunity to obligation

  28. What about the right to refuse repair? by TomGreenhaw · · Score: 1

    Let's say you just had a battery replaced in your iPhone, and then a part with a know manufacturing defect that only can be obtained from Apple fails. Does Apple have the right to refuse repair of the phone or supply the parts?

    I know there would be an outcry if Ford refused repair of a car just out of warranty because you had the oil changed somewhere besides a Ford dealer, and yet this is Apple policy.

    This just happened to me. I've retired my Apple Watch and iPhone in Favor of a Galaxy Note and Gear Frontier watch.

    --
    Greed is the root of all evil.