Slashdot Mirror
A 17-Year-Old Has Become Michigan's Leading Right To Repair Advocate (vice.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard: Surya Raghavendran of Ann Arbor, Michigan isn't your average 17-year-old. Not only does the high school senior run a small business repairing iPhones when he's not in class, but he's raising awareness about people's right to fix their own devices without paying companies like Apple exorbitant fees. "People should be able to choose where they want to get their devices repaired," Raghavendran told me over the phone. "Right to repair will decrease the amount of e-waste and people will retain their devices much longer with suitable repair networks." Raghavendran is doing more than just talking about right to repair, he's become one of the leading advocates for a right to repair law in the state by pushing his lawmakers to introduce legislation that would protect a consumer's right to repair.
Raghavendran started researching the laws around repairing electronics, and he joined up with Environment Michigan -- an environmental activist group -- and started going to Lansing, the state capitol, to ask politicians what they were doing to protect people's right to repair their own devices. Raghavendran sent an email to state senator Rebekah Warren who called him in for a meeting and told him to start a petition. Since July, he's been asking for stories from the public about why the right to repair is important. The right to repair fight is happening all across the country at the local level and Raghavendran's petition has drawn support from people like like Nathan Proctor, the Director of the Campaign for the Right to Repair at US PIRG. Repair.org, a group pushing for right to repair laws all over the country, has draft legislation it wants to get in front of Michigan's state legislature. Proctor has been working with Raghavendran, Environment Michigan, and Michigan legislators to draft right to repair legislation. Proctor wants to pass a right to repair bill that is similar to the one passed in Massachusetts that forced automotive companies to share diagnostic information with third party repair shops. The law passed in 2012 "set a precedent and the industry rolled out the changes nationally," reports Motherboard.
Raghavendran started researching the laws around repairing electronics, and he joined up with Environment Michigan -- an environmental activist group -- and started going to Lansing, the state capitol, to ask politicians what they were doing to protect people's right to repair their own devices. Raghavendran sent an email to state senator Rebekah Warren who called him in for a meeting and told him to start a petition. Since July, he's been asking for stories from the public about why the right to repair is important. The right to repair fight is happening all across the country at the local level and Raghavendran's petition has drawn support from people like like Nathan Proctor, the Director of the Campaign for the Right to Repair at US PIRG. Repair.org, a group pushing for right to repair laws all over the country, has draft legislation it wants to get in front of Michigan's state legislature. Proctor has been working with Raghavendran, Environment Michigan, and Michigan legislators to draft right to repair legislation. Proctor wants to pass a right to repair bill that is similar to the one passed in Massachusetts that forced automotive companies to share diagnostic information with third party repair shops. The law passed in 2012 "set a precedent and the industry rolled out the changes nationally," reports Motherboard.
A 17 year-old is not a millennial. Millennials are ~22 to 38 years old at the moment. He is gen-z.
... Finding a job after this. I wouldn't be surprised if he finds himself on a no-fly list as well. The moment he turns 18 he'll be sued into the gutter.
The iPhone X has a logic board that consists of two PCBs sandwiched together with an interposer PCB running around the outside edge, essentially sealing some of the components inside a PCB sarcophagus. This could easily be considered as "unrepairable" by Apple.
If they were forced to give out new assemblies, they could charge an arm and a leg for them. Furthermore, they could easily say that due to the design of the system, replacing the main logic board requires replacing the screen and Face ID sensor assembly as well. This would easily exceed the cost of a new device, but hey- you can certainly order new parts and repair your own device if you want to. It's just gonna cost you.
Of course, I also don't see why they couldn't just seal up the entire unit- sonically weld it together or something, like some of the Surface computers. That way nobody can get into them and the entire unit is considered one disposable assembly. There are no parts to repair because the unit was never designed to be opened.
This is where the "right to repair" is heading- the tech giants aren't going to give up their profits, so they'll just declare all their devices as being literally unservicable and deal with it that way. The ramifications of this will just mean that those few devices that could be opened before (to some degree) will be completely sealed in the future, and the moment anything goes wrong with the device- you just throw it out and buy a new one.
This is a great story and that young man is going to do great things. At 17 sounds like he has his act together and is handling business. Thank you for sharing this.
Then the right to repair imposes a 50% tax on such devices and suddenly screws and connectors appear in the next version.
Yeah, there will always be things that are not repairable. And sure, densely integrated electronics in maximally portable devices are a good candidate. I don't really care if a cellphone is like 3-4 parts... screen, PCB, battery, case. Or that if my earbug headphones break that they have no serviceable parts at all. I can deal with that.
But its a bigger problem than just cellphones; stuff like farm tractors, major appliances, hvac stuff, industrial robots/machinery... where the manufacturers are holding you hostage.
There are market forces and physical realities about cellphones that make repairing them legitimately impractical. The same is not true for this other stuff.
Since those will be the only devices available, the tax will only hurt the consumers.
Is he realling the leading advocate? Or is he just a advocate who happens to have the right "qualifications" to be held up as a posterboy for the movement by some journalists?
This is a statement about millennials:
“We have a really broken relationship with stuff,” [] “We treat everything as disposable including these thousand-dollar computers,”
We GenXers aren't like that. Maybe today's 17 year olds are also becoming smarter than that.
Fits right in with the other story about millennials. Millennials brought us Trump, need I say more?
If you believe in the market, someone will want to undercut everyone else and will make a repairable device to do it. If you don't believe in the market, next step is ban the irreparable devices entirely.
I am sure apple has probably already experimented with just filling the entire inside of the phone with epoxy. Too bad they got rid of the headphone jack that could have been the perfect place to inject the epoxy
Uhh, the only company that has taken a stance against right to repair in the phone industry is Apple.
Nobody else has released patches that actively detect and disable the whole phone
I would like to see how one would market a flagship device as repairable. While people know that devices will break, you don't really want to know that while pre-ordering your next smartphone. Is like buying a car, and a salesman gives you the contact for the local mechanic
A year of free breakdown cover is a normal when buying a new car
President Trump speaks Truth to power.
Unfortunately he doesn't consider anyone powerful...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
If you install aftermarket devices not using OEM hardware you run that risk.
I'm repeating myself with this comment, but I think it does bear repeating. The right to repair is not simply the "right to repair", but also the "right to upgrade".
One of the biggest issues with modern consumer electronics has been the shift towards devices in which the owner is actively discouraged from attempting to upgrade when a device reaches capacity or fails to perform adequately, in favour of buying a new machine from the vendor.
This covers a broad range of technology, from laptops and portable computers (where a tech-savvy user might like to upgrade RAM, storage and/or battery units), through desktop PCs, mobile phones, all types of personal transportation, but especially cars, trucks and motorcycles. Indeed, as computing power and technology becomes more prevalent, so the right to repair and upgrade becomes more important.
Manufacturers are going to argue that (for example) components soldered to motherboards are inherently more reliable than socketed or cabled components, since the soldered approach can reduce the chance of "dry joints". But that is a false claim. For a start, manufacturing has reached a level of sophistication where this sort of risk can be "designed out" with good component layout. More importantly, though, shouldn't we be able to choose?
Correct, but usually it's not a selling point. Usually for a car you want to sell power, mileage, safety and reliability. And in a phone you want cpu, camera and battery. I'm not seeing Tim Cook, on stage with a hammer saying "and now for something completely different..." *smashes iphone screen with hammer*, "and now you can replace it as often as you want"
I bet he's a german nazi.
There is a monster difference between iPhones and situations like John Deere tractors (their owners real victims in the right to repair wars)
iPhones are only hard to repair by virtue of the fact that to get them so small and meet their design goals, yeah, they're hard to repair, and the reason 3rd party components are cheaper is because yeah, they are cheaper, meaning not made to the same specifications and backwards engineered, so they may fail down the road because of incompatibility with software upgrades.
But all that being said, Apple doesn't actually stop you from repairing your own phone and all this guy is trying to do is force Apple to make his job easier. I.e., he may be a small business but ultimately this is just another case of one business complaining about the doings of another business.
John Deere tractors on the other hand are not "hard to repair", they are ILLEGAL to repair because John Deere has used insane licensing to make them so. That's where real right to repair laws need to come into force.
This reminds me of something I read a few months back Repair Cafe's, where volunteers run a cafe not for profit, and you bring your broken kit there, and get it repaired.
Personally I'm sick and tired of these manufacturers that like nothing better than to glue in their components, and to make them as unrepairable as possible.
Manufacturers really need to start thinking about environmental sustainability and responsibility in their designs, and I welcome anyone who like the person in the article, set out to start their own repair shops.
If they were forced to give out new assemblies, they could charge an arm and a leg for them.
That's typical of the USA's bold and risk-taking attitude in politics: Let's not even try to solve the problem because we might fail.
Rather, why spend time and effort on stuff only a bunch of neckbeards care about?
The easy spin is that it is green, and that they will refurbish your iPhone XS when the XLST comes out next year and donate a percentage of them to a women's charity or schoolchildren in India or whatever.
In India, fixing your electronics instead of replacing them is the cultural norm. Same with Afghanistan, apparently. They teach children about electronic circuit design and repair in elementary school. We should be doing that here in North America, too.
Well, the inventors of the term would disagree.
"No one knows who will name the next generation," says Neil Howe, who, along with his deceased co-author and business partner, William Strauss, is widely credited with naming the Millennials, a generation he figures spans from about 1982 to 2004.
we need to stop the fad of non-repairable tractors produced by farmabro companies
The problem with right to repair is it is implemented by the government. The government has this awesome way of taking a good idea and neutering it.
Right to repair in Massachusetts is the only reason there is even the slightest bit of "internal" Tesla knowledge available to the public. That's great, but look at the lengths Tesla goes to maliciously comply. They charge outrageous fees for access to their e-books (by the HOUR) and they actually put effort into redacting every single item they don't legally have to present, so entire swaths of their manuals are blank pages. And, of course, the parts still won't be sold even though you now know how to perform the repair.
The truth is consumers have to push for this by not buying this shit. Don't buy anything from Tesla until Tesla at least meets the already low standards from other automakers. Other automakers will sell you any of their "special tools" (albeit at prices you probably don't want to afford), they will sell you ANY parts you want (again, you might not want to pay the prices, but if you had the dealer do the work, they'd still charge you the same prices), they will even sell you the service manuals (and they're cheaper than you might expect, though probably more than you want to pay, again). This has resulted in independent garages being able to do most any repairs to anything that is NOT a Tesla. It's also resulted in those service manuals appearing on less-than-legal sites for those who don't like to spend, and knockoffs of the special tools appearing for 1/10th the dealer original prices, and parts for less than half the price.
Try to buy Tesla battery contactors that aren't used and are the updated fault free models. Good luck, because if you don't replace your recalled ones, your car will strand you. But Tesla won't let you do that work yourself because they'll never sell you the parts. They'll claim it's far too dangerous.
Yet GM will sell you a machine that ignites a gallon of explosive vapour 100 times a minute and won't get in your way if you want to replace the individual parts. And somehow you're alive.
That's where the 50% tax on non-repairable hardware comes in. Make a device that doesn't incur the tax and consumers will easily see the benefit of not paying the tax.
When he hangs be sure to suck his dick while nobody is looking, you faggot.
And this, my friends, is what passes as thoughtful, substantive and meaningful political debate from those afflicted by Trump derangement syndrome. To hell with the real issues of the day, we have to demonize 45 no matter what the cost!
The tax shouldn't be for violating right to repair. That's too subjective - some people don't believe in right to repair..
The tax should be for artificially shortening the usable lifespan of the device, causing it to prematurely enter the waste stream. That's objective, indisputable, and quantifiable. If the device (with repairs) is designed to stay in service for 10+ years, then no tax. 7-9 years, 25% tax. 5-6 years, 50%. 3-4 years 100%. 1-2 years 200%. This would also handle the problem of proprietary parts no longer being available for older devices. If a manufacturer wants to use proprietary parts, they have to keep replacement parts in stock for 15+ years to avoid the tax (retroactive if they fail). The alternative is to use non-proprietary parts so replacements can be bought on the open market, freeing the manufacturer from having to keep them in stock themselves.
For brownie points, you could require warranties to extend this long. You have to be careful with that though, since it could shift the economics to where the tax becomes cheaper than the cost of providing warranty service for a decade, causing companies to favor intentionally shortening the lifespan of the device.
Lots of stuff isn't 'worth' repairing. That by itself doesn't make it unrepairable, nor does it mean the manufacturer denies you the ability to repair it.
But deliberate manufacturing designed to prevent repair is an unfortunate choice. Denying you the necessary information to actually repair that which can be should not be permitted.
My early career included repairing IBM typewriters, and it was this which resulted in a variety of measures that made my work possible. I did not and never worked for IBM. But I could buy parts, documentation, and tools, and did so.
Mind you Apple regularly denies access to parts for third-party repair outfits that competed successfully with their preferred vendors.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
"Is like buying a car, and a salesman gives you the contact for the local mechanic"
If you're under the impression that your car will never need expensive repairs, you're a special kind of stupid. You don't much bother with a $30 protective case for your $1000 phone either, right?
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
So, racist one, please advise which "proud boy" was out there petitioning and questioning which the media ignored?
"started going to Lansing, the state capitol, to ask politicians what they were doing to protect people's right to repair their own devices", is why this guy was mentioned. He is active. But that would not fit your victim mentality, which is all racists have to hang their hat on.
I grew up in Ann Arbor and I'm not surprised to see this happening there. It's a well educated city with a long history of political involvement. Combine that with the entrepreneurial spirit that the University of Michigan has created there and you'll have folks like this.
I thought trump was the fault of the Baby Boomers and the fear of "immigrants taking our jerbs"?
that's Mumbai, you insensitive clod!
He already owns a business repairing iPhones. Many places, even kiosks, repair phones. I repaired one of iPhone. what's his specific case of being prevented? I don't see it described anywhere. I only read that in general he's for the right to repair and advocates a new state law about such.
These days consumer electronics cost a fraction because of automation and economies of scale. Also the cheaper ones perform nearly as well as the most expensive ones. ie a $100 android smartphone does almost all of what a $1k iphone does. So why not just buy a cheap product and just replace it when something goes wrong? ie buy a newer another for another $100.
The phone was $100 because of automation and whatever helped in bringing the production cost down. Even the $1k one is not fault proof.. it is going to fail; so why invest that much?
The plan is just buy the cheapest one available in market that solves your current need (next 8 or 12 months) say and be prepared (do data backups etc) the thing will die; n don't bother about repair (takes too much human cognitive effort); just discard/e-waste it and buy a new one.
Other than the donation, Apple already does that if you return a used Apple device to th em. That's why they have all those robots - it breaks down the phone into separate components and they reuse what they can (e.g., camera modules that are functional are used to refurbish units with broken cameras).
Anything they can't salvage, or contains personal data they shred (as much as it would nice to reuse logic boards, protection of personal information is generally considered #1 and Apple would rather shred the storage devices than allow even the remote chance that a device will get shipped out with someone's information still on it.
Anyhow, the biggest issue is security. Things like the Touch ID sensor are bonded to the logic board for a reason - the secure enclave needs to trust the touch ID unit is proper. If not, imagine some spook agency replacing touch ID units with ones that record fingerprints- so instead of requiring your fingerprint, all they have to is is press it a certain way and it returns a working fingerprint thus bypassing it. Thus some measure must be in place that ensures the touch ID unit and the logic board are genuine Apple parts and that re-bonding the two isn't a trivial operation that can be done by anyone.
Same goes for touchscreens - it's not hard to modify a touch controller to record taps, especially say the taps one may do after waking up the unit in order to capture the unlock passcode. Replace the screen, perfect time to have a modified touch controller that do these things.
And then there are custom parts - Apple often customizes the parts they use - they would take a standard off the shelf part (like say aforementioned touch controller) and modify it slightly to satisfy their needs. The end result is if you use the generic part, it mostly works, until Apple decides to use their custom functionality which breaks stuff. Like say they may upload new firmware to the touch controller to compensate for a screen defect. But the generic part crashes when running the new firmware.
It's not as simple as it seems - and even simple solutions like disabling Touch ID because of it people will still accuse Apple of intentionally disabling 3rd party hardware. About the best one can do is do something like "Warning: Insecure fingerprint mode" that appears when the sensor is replaced by a different one (legit or not) to warn the user that the fingerprint module is compromised.
I remember when I first started encountering a lot of surface-mounted stuff (instead of socketed) back in the 1990s, where I couldn't just order a replacement because the soldering was beyond my skills (or at least motivation -- but really, I won't lie: it was lack of skill).
The lesson? Don't buy unmaintainable hardware .. unless it really is cheap enough that you think of it as disposable. Either that, or accept attrition as the cost of getting to have fun toys.
(Is it any wonder that I use a $225 phone, and resent that it is so damned expensive?)
I guess my point is this: the consumer really is in control, mostly. I don't think there should be any laws against making things hard to maintain. Because any person with common sense knows better than to buy it, unless they're so rich that burning money isn't something that offends them. It's up to you, the buyer.
"If someone offers you unmaintainable computing, just say no." -- Nancy Reagan
But let's not kid ourselves: a big part of the "right to repair" cause is that there are laws against us repairing things, mainly DMCA. The government is taking sides on this instead of leaving it to the market. And if the government is taking sides, then why not be on our side, instead of the current situation where the government is an adversary of the people? If we're going to have laws (and really, I think we shouldn't), then yes, it should be illegal for Apple (and everyone else; it's not like they're the only offender) to manufacture that way. Again, I mean that only within the context that people insist there be laws and government must take sides.
Take away all the laws that are involved here, and I'm totally cool with that, because I know for sure that as a consumer, I'll do fine. No sale except on my terms, and I can be a stubborn son of a bitch.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
And they do this because consumers keep buying them. Maybe the push for repairing should be aimed more at consumers than politicians. Nobody needs an iPhone 10, seriously.
Apple is not located conveniently, if at all, outside the U.S. It became a joke traveling South America when my iPad mini stopped working. Apple had no presence in Uruguay nor Argentina. I had to send it off or buy a new one and have it mailed down to South America.
> artificially shortening the usable lifespan of the device
sounds an awful lot like fraud
"Leading" in this context means "exercising leadership", so I'd say yes, he qualifies as *a* leading advocate. "*The*" leading advocate is clearly hyperbole, but that's the way people think about these things. We like to personify abstract issues, to put a single face on complicated political movements. George Washington is the undisputed "Father of His Country", but there were many others who could lay claim to that title with equal justice.
_______________________________________________________
https://showbox.software/ [ShowBox.software] https://luckypatcher.pro/ [LuckyPatcher.pro] https://kodi.software/ [Kodi.software]
I think they should rename any such legislation the "right to tamper", thus ensuring that government agencies and industrial espionage operators and private detectives won't get in trouble for "repairing" your device.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
This would be the opposite of that, btw. Itâ(TM)s the Trump follower, and Kool-Aid drinking derangement syndrome that elicits such responses.