Slashdot Mirror
California Reintroduces 'Right To Repair' Bill After Previous Effort Failed (appleinsider.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Apple Insider: California State Assembly member Susan Talamantes Eggman on Monday announced the introduction of Assembly Bill 1163, which will require manufacturers like Apple to "make service literature and equipment or parts available to product owners and to regulated, independent repair shops." "For nearly 30 years California has required that manufacturers provide access to replacement parts and service materials for electronics and appliances to authorized repairers in the state. In that time, manufacturers have captured the market, controlling where and when we repair our property, and inflating the electronic waste stream," Eggman said. "The Right to Repair will provide consumers with the freedom to have their electronic products and appliances fixed by a repair shop or service provider of their choice, creating a competitive market that will be cheaper for consumers and reduce the number of devices thrown in the trash."
The bill, officially filed as legislation relating to electronic waste, is Eggman's second try at right to repair legislation. Her first attempt, 2018's Bill 2110, was introduced last March and subsequently died in assembly that November. Like the pending Bill 1163, last year's tendered legislation was crafted as a play to reduce e-waste. Eggman's announcement includes a word-for-word reproduction of an explainer included in 2018's press release for the now-dead Bill 2110. In it the lawmaker argues that customers who are unable to pay for manufacturer repairs are forced to replace broken equipment like smartphones, TVs and home appliances. Beyond financial benefits, Eggman also says that the repair and reuse of electronics is more efficient than purchasing a new device, noting that such measures can "stimulate local economies instead of unsustainable overseas factories."
The bill, officially filed as legislation relating to electronic waste, is Eggman's second try at right to repair legislation. Her first attempt, 2018's Bill 2110, was introduced last March and subsequently died in assembly that November. Like the pending Bill 1163, last year's tendered legislation was crafted as a play to reduce e-waste. Eggman's announcement includes a word-for-word reproduction of an explainer included in 2018's press release for the now-dead Bill 2110. In it the lawmaker argues that customers who are unable to pay for manufacturer repairs are forced to replace broken equipment like smartphones, TVs and home appliances. Beyond financial benefits, Eggman also says that the repair and reuse of electronics is more efficient than purchasing a new device, noting that such measures can "stimulate local economies instead of unsustainable overseas factories."
Call me old-fashioned, but it will always be: Susan Talamantes Robotnik.
Circumcision is child abuse.
Apple and others (John Deere, to pick another industry) consistently lobby against right-to-repair laws. I've heard plenty of arguments in favor of RTR, but I've rarely heard a credible argument against. Is there a reason, outside of greed, that we shouldn't be able to have access to documentation and parts for devices we own?
I have an HP laptop that's getting on in years, and the wifi has developed an intermittent fault. On HP's site, I downloaded a tech/repair manual for the thing that includes the part number for the wifi card. It's trivial for me to buy a new one and install it. What is it about Apple's gadgets that forbids mere mortals from looking inside?
Why?
Two rules are critical:
1. Wear items, such as batteries, must be easily user-removable and replaceable. Exceptions for certain types of medical and human interface devices, or where the device's primary function is as a battery (ie. power banks).
2. Superuser privileges on personal and mobile computing devices must be made available at time of purchase. If there is a means of escalating privilege (ie. sideloading, rooting, firmware flashing, oem unlock, etc.) and it's not limited by FCC compliance, it must be available, or the device cannot be legally sold or imported for resale.
A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
Not only should root access/firmware flashing (or equivalent) be mandatory as terms of sale on all general/mobile computing devices, it should be a criminal offense to offer functionality to non-rooted devices that is not also available to rooted devices.
That is, it should be a crime to discriminate between devices passing SafetyNet, and devices which fail.
My $0.02.
A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
You know, sometimes I think people use buzzwords just to sound like they know what they are talking about - even though they really don't know what the buzzwords mean.
but I was just hoping there's a reason somewhere in between the two.
There isn't any, basically businesses are trying to prevent people from owning and controlling the things they pay for to turn it into a racket. The new model is "everything as a service" where you merely rent your existence from these big companies. It's a real revenue generator.
It is a bit "interesting" when unapologetic capitalists fight so hard against property rights for everyone else. Almost as if they don't really believe in capitalism so much as they believe in I got mine, screw you!
Your property right is to your device, not to the manufacturer doing anything else for you. If these repair rights are so important to you, then pay for them: only buy from manufacturers who provide guarantees of convenient repair and available inexpensive parts and free documentation. Understand that such guarantees change the business model for making devices, and almost certainly will raise prices. Manufacturers would provide this if enough people would pay for it, but realistically they won't. So you want something for free: you want to, in effect, take something from the manufacturer that you didn't pay for. They owe you nothing, they are not your slave. Nor are you theirs.
Okay, I'll play Devil's Advocate. For one thing Chinese replacement batteries? Can blow up, blow up REAL good. Anybody who has dealt with Chinese batteries can tell you their Lithium Ion batteries are dodgy as fuck, but are you gonna force manufacturers to keep making batteries for devices they no longer sell, batteries that have a shelf life and take up space, because some consumer down the road MAY actually replace the battery instead of just shitcanning it and getting another? Because if you don't force them most devices made this year are gonna be obsolete next year so they ain't gonna make batteries for that model so see dodgy Chinese batteries.
Second one relates to the first...as we have seen with everything from hard drives to Wifi chips there is a ton of ways to hide malware in stuff these days and most of the parts are gonna be coming again from dodgy Chinese factories (because the OEM won't be making last years model parts, they'll be busy working on the new hotness with whatever is hot that year like phone notches or notchless with camera behind the screen or extra wide screens or whatever) and if its one thing we've learned the past few years its the Chinese government wants to suck up data more than even Google which is saying something. Are the consumers gonna blame the dodgy Chinese company who put in the bug when it comes out they've all been duped and the reason their device feels like its gonna melt is its been turned into a bitcoin miner? Nope they are gonna blame the OEM,
Now personally I'm all for letting folks get their stuff fixed from whomever they want, and that anybody should be able to import after market or refurb parts to fix these devices, but OTOH I can also see the OEMs deserving at least a way to let the consumer know if that used device they are picking up on eBay is using genuine OEM parts or Cheapo Chinese Crap, same as how AFAIK you aren't allowed anywhere to take a car out of the junkyard, fix it up and then sell it without a salvage title to let people know its been busted up. To me that is fair to all parties and personally I'd like to know if that device I'm buying used has a real OEM screen and battery or is hacked together from parts on Ali Express or the replacement part I get is the real deal or a fake.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
You cannot be serious. Right to repair laws definitely will put burdens on manufacturers to do stuff, change stuff, provide stuff, and manage stuff that they are not otherwise obligated to do. They also will change their business models (greater competition from the used market). If these laws cost the manufactures nothing, then they wouldn't fight them so hard. Try to see it from their perspective. These burdens will cost the company more, which will put upward price pressure / downward profit (which is ultimately the same thing). Yes, I repair my gadgets, but I don't think most people would want to pay extra for that ability, but right to repair laws would force consumers to pay more (either in dollars or reduced availability). If consumers prioritized easy repair, then more devices would have that. I don't even see it mentioned in reviews. It's quite clear that nowadays consumers would not pay much for repair. So devices don't have it.
"What is it about Apple's gadgets that forbids mere mortals from looking inside?"
Nothing. Even without the law being passed, you can get the pentalobe driver, open your iphone, replace parts which 3rd party versions (if you know what you are doing), and close it up again. This law is forcing manufacturers to continue manufacturing parts for products they no longer produce, for 7 years.
Funnily enough iFixit's list of hard to repair smartphones is topped by a bunch of Android devices: https://www.ifixit.com/smartph... The Samsung s10 scored a 3, the iPhone XS scored a 6, higher score means more repairable so in iFixit's opinion the iPhone is more repairable than a shit-ton of Android devices. I suppose it is time to grab the pitchforks, light up the torches and burn iFixit HQ do to the ground for spreading heresy.
On the other hand better development of third party repair shops would reduce workload for company's own repair facilities. The only reason companies can get away with such ineffective labor distribution is because all other companies do it. Trashing perfectly working devices because cost of repair is higher than cost of a new one(most likely due to authorized repair facilities having inadequate capacity due to monopoly privileges allowing for very few of them) is ridiculous and economically inefficient and if market forces aren't working to prevent it then it's yet another example of market failure.
In the case of John Deere, some of their arguments are based on the fact that their equipment is a motorized vehicle. As such, right-to-repair laws are tantamount to right-to-modify laws. Allowing that opens the door to people tinkering with the engine performance, which could result in worse emissions (but moar powah!). Alternately, in the case of a combine or other farm equipment, safety features could easily be disabled or circumvented by someone, in the name of faster or more efficient operation. The person disabling the safety features may not always be the person actually operating the equipment, so it's not just a "you mod it, you assume the risk" kind of thing.
I don't really buy those arguments, but they do exist.
The easy counterargument is to point out that the above situation has existed in the auto industry for decades, consumers are well served, and the sky has not fallen.
There are a couple of arguments I have personally heard.
1. Personal Electronic Manufacturers
The most common argument put forward is the "Degraded User Experience" fable, which goes something like this: If you take our pristine product, and give it to an inexperienced third party to repair, you have no assurance that the repairer is trained or qualified to maintain our beloved technology. If a sub-standard repair is performed and you then elect to sell or give away the product without disclosing the 3rd party repair, the new owner could form the mistaken impression that our pristine product is somehow unreliable or of poor quality. It is only by controlling the entire end-to-end process, including repairs, that we can provide that assurance of life-long quality.
To which my response is often, Well, OK, but how come you stop supporting your products after just a couple of years? If you are the sole source of repairs, should I not be given some guarantee that your products have a useful lifespan?
2. The Technology is Too Dangerous for Mere Mortals
The most common argument put forward by companies like John Deere (and car companies using electronic servicing tools, like BMW) is to argue that: Our technology is extremely complex. It is also used for purposes and in ways that, if a problem were to develop, may result in the injury or loss of life of the operator. Because of this - and without accepting any liability for any loss of life or injury through the use of our products - we cannot in good conscience allow untrained, unqualified third parties to service our products.
To which my response is often, Hang on, the only difference - the *only* difference between your ability to service this product and a third party is that you've got that fancy box of electronics to plug in to the dashboard to reset the "service interval" clock. Unless or until you can demonstrate to me that your possession of and use of that reset device preserves my safety in a way that a third party cannot, you're talking nonsense...
To be clear, neither of these arguments are valid; neither of them should be accepted as legitimate justification. The simple truth is that these practices allow companies to charge whatever they want for maintenance and spares. This is all about controlling the market to control profits - to keep a captive market.
Or, put another way, racketeering.