Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Delicieuxz

EU plans 'right to repair' rules for phones and tablets

Recommended Posts

Posted · Original PosterOP

 

EU plans 'right to repair' rules for phones and tablets

Quote

 

Manufacturers of phones, tablets and laptops will face legal obligations to make their products easier to repair and reuse, under a far-reaching recycling plan from the European Union executive.

 

The European commission wants to drastically increase recycling of electronic goods, which are often difficult to repair, replace batteries or upgrade. Less than 40% of electronic waste in the EU is thought to be recycled.

 

Billed as “the right to repair”, the European commission will extend an eco-design law to cover phones, tablets and laptops, setting technical standards so these goods consist of changeable and repairable parts. The current eco-design directive sets energy efficiency standards for computers, TVs, dishwashers and washing machines.

 

Virginijus Sinkevičius, European commissioner for the environment, said the “circular economy” plan was a new economic model for the continent.

“The linear growth model of ‘take, make, use discard’ has reached its limits,” he told reporters.
 

...

 

The law will have to be agreed by EU member states and the European parliament.

 

The commission is also considering an EU-wide scheme that would enable consumers to sell or return old phones, tablets and chargers. It also wants to introduce a common charger.

 

Also promised in the plan:

  • Encouraging industry to improve recycling and reuse of textiles, although there will not be a new target to reduce municipal waste.
  • A target that all packaging should be reusable or recyclable by 2030, in an attempt to tackle soaring rubbish in this area. The average person in the EU accounted for a record-breaking 173kg of packaging in 2017.
  • A review of rules on exporting waste outside Europe, as well as more efforts to tackle illegal shipments of rubbish. The move comes as China and other Asian nations reject shipments of plastics and dangerous electronic waste from Europe and North America. The commission acknowledged that waste exports led to “negative environmental and health impacts in the countries of destination” and said it wanted to create a “recycled in the EU” benchmark for reused materials.
  • At least some of the measures will apply to the UK, as technology companies will not make goods to a different standard for the smaller British market. While negotiations between the EU and UK on a free trade agreement are ongoing, it is unclear whether the UK will follow all EU standards.

 

 

So, following up on their implementation of Right to Repair legislation for appliances, the EU is looking to expand access-to-repair rights to consumer electronics.

 

Right to Repair is a bit of a misnomer: If you bought it, you own it and it's yours to do with as you please. But R2R is more specifically about mandating that people have access to the tools, parts, means, and professional services to actually get their things repaired without having to depend on the manufacturer of their electronics. But the term makes it sound like people need to fight for a privilege they already have by right of ownership over their property. Should be called Access to Repair or something else.

 

One part of the article raises a question in me: "The commission is also considering an EU-wide scheme that would enable consumers to sell or return old phones". So, in what way can EU residents not currently sell their old phones?

 

 

On the topic, some Canadian advocacy groups, like OpenMediaare pushing for R2R legislation. If you'd like to sign OpenMedia's petition in support of R2R in Canada, click here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Apple is not gonna be happy, but good on the EU for pushing this out. I wonder if Louis Rossman is going to talk about this on his streams.


The deep blue sky is infinitely high and crystal clear.

私はオタクではありません。
#Muricaparrotgang

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right to repair should apply to most things. Not all, but most. Like, changing oil in your car is your right. Rebuilding the engine is also your right. But there comes a point when, with something like that, you become responsible for what happens after. It's a very fine line, finer than Linus. We need to find that line first and make it bold enough for all to see. But regardless, this is step in the right direction and I'm happy to see it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was hearing this on the old radio the other day. I'm a little concerned. So they want to make it so phones are more repairable, i.e. screws instead of glue - wouldn't this impair a unibody design and take phones back a long way?

 

The other thing is how can a manufacturer be expected to uphold a warranty if you've tried to repair it beforehand? You may have a right to repair, but I don't think just anyone is qualified to follow an online guide or just simply try, the manufacturer doesn't know what the consumer did to the phone, maybe they broke it more. 

 

There was also the idea of planned obsolescence being illegal, which it should. (Although the example of Apple was  brought up, I don't think trying to stop unexpected shutdowns due to battery is quite planned obsolescence - it's a limitation of the battery)

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TempestCatto said:

Right to repair should apply to most things. Not all, but most. Like, changing oil in your car is your right. Rebuilding the engine is also your right. But there comes a point when, with something like that, you become responsible for what happens after. It's a very fine line, finer than Linus. We need to find that line first and make it bold enough for all to see. But regardless, this is step in the right direction and I'm happy to see it.

It's about what is in your own hands. Can you honestly say, there is any reason, why a person can 1) purchase and object 2) not be allowed to repair that object?

 

"Right to repair" varies in *how* it's implemented. But the min requirement is, someone don't come into your house and beat you over the head with a bat for fixing an object.

 

I think that's the problem. Everyone goes crazy expecting right to repair means Apples gotta send over a personal butler to service you while some booth babes lick your iphone clean and some trained leopards repair the phone all at some socialists expense out of his tax bills. That's just crazy thinking, and I'm kinda fed up that every single discussion seems to devolve into such extremes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

It's about what is in your own hands. Can you honestly say, there is any reason, why a person can 1) purchase and object 2) not be allowed to repair that object?

 

"Right to repair" varies in *how* it's implemented. But the min requirement is, someone don't come into your house and beat you over the head with a bat for fixing an object.

 

I think that's the problem. Everyone goes crazy expecting right to repair means Apples gotta send over a personal butler to service you while some booth babes lick your iphone clean and some trained leopards repair the phone all at some socialists expense out of his tax bills. That's just crazy thinking, and I'm kinda fed up that every single discussion seems to devolve into such extremes.

I think everyone should be allowed to repair their own stuff.

 

But i also dont think they should be able to fuck up a product and then demand the company fixes it either.

 

Thats what i think they mean by fine line.

 

You should be able to change the oil on your car and keep warranty. But you shouldnt be allowed to replace your cars oil with pepsi and expect the warranty to cover it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

 

I think that's the problem. Everyone goes crazy expecting right to repair means Apples gotta send over a personal butler to service you while some booth babes lick your iphone clean and some trained leopards repair the phone all at some socialists expense out of his tax bills. That's just crazy thinking, and I'm kinda fed up that every single discussion seems to devolve into such extremes.

I don't know anyone who thinks that let alone has ever said that should be the way it goes.  In fact I don't know any one who is demanding companies do anything other than make it possible for them to fix their own device or go to a 3rd party if necessary.


QuicK and DirtY. Read the CoC it's like a guide on how not to be moron.  Also I don't have an issue with the VS series.

Sometimes I miss contractions like n't on the end of words like wouldn't, couldn't and shouldn't.    Please don't be a dick,  make allowances when reading my posts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/13/2020 at 8:19 PM, mr moose said:

I don't know anyone who thinks that let alone has ever said that should be the way it goes.  In fact I don't know any one who is demanding companies do anything other than make it possible for them to fix their own device or go to a 3rd party if necessary.

A lot of the arguments in the hearings in America (from what I've seen in the Rossman recordings) seem to boil down to that. Claims that they got to release their ip. Or provide actual products in a warehouse, etc.

 

A lot of the posts in the other thread were along the lines of "they are forcing a company to do X Y and Z". But asking them to stop sending the riot squads into a store, is (to want to not quote Rossman, but with it was a good example) just asking them to stop at your front door and not pass through, the same way they ask us to stop at theirs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

A lot of the arguments in the hearings in America (from what I've seen in the Rossman recordings) seem to boil down to that. Claims that they got to release their ip. Or provide actual products in a warehouse, etc.

 

A lot of the posts in the other thread were along the lines of "they are forcing a company to do X Y and Z". But asking them to stop sending the riot squads into a store, is (to want to not quote Rossman, but with it was a good example) just asking them to stop at your front door and not pass through, the same way they ask us to stop at theirs.

Sorry, when you said that before I thought you meant people on the forum were trying to argue that.   I think we agree.  No company is being demanded to hand over their IP (as they claim will happen), we are just demanding they not kibosh every attempt to repair devices outside of the oem. 


QuicK and DirtY. Read the CoC it's like a guide on how not to be moron.  Also I don't have an issue with the VS series.

Sometimes I miss contractions like n't on the end of words like wouldn't, couldn't and shouldn't.    Please don't be a dick,  make allowances when reading my posts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, mr moose said:

Sorry, when you said that before I thought you meant people on the forum were trying to argue that.   I think we agree.  No company is being demanded to hand over their IP (as they claim will happen), we are just demanding they not kibosh every attempt to repair devices outside of the oem. 

Yeah, those outside of the tech sphere, or those with alternative motives (investments, employed, sales and marketing brainwashed) seem to think it's one side vs the other and some sort of war. When you look at the lowest/smallest attacks by companies though, it's things like stopping people replacing a fuse (non-safety/end of product types) that things get silly and harmful.

 

I totally agree some things are not safe, and need regulating the other way. But some things are super simple to fix, but companies are putting people in court over it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/13/2020 at 6:46 PM, RorzNZ said:

I was hearing this on the old radio the other day. I'm a little concerned. So they want to make it so phones are more repairable, i.e. screws instead of glue - wouldn't this impair a unibody design and take phones back a long way?

 

The other thing is how can a manufacturer be expected to uphold a warranty if you've tried to repair it beforehand? You may have a right to repair, but I don't think just anyone is qualified to follow an online guide or just simply try, the manufacturer doesn't know what the consumer did to the phone, maybe they broke it more. 

 

There was also the idea of planned obsolescence being illegal, which it should. (Although the example of Apple was  brought up, I don't think trying to stop unexpected shutdowns due to battery is quite planned obsolescence - it's a limitation of the battery)

The right to repair doesn't mean that the manufacturer still has to provide warranty, in fact the warranty could still say something like "opening the phone invalidates your warranty with us". The right to repair simply means that they should be easier to do so, rather than having to junk devices because they are so difficult to repair that it's not worth it. Well that was my take on it anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, poops said:

The right to repair doesn't mean that the manufacturer still has to provide warranty, in fact the warranty could still say something like "opening the phone invalidates your warranty with us". The right to repair simply means that they should be easier to do so, rather than having to junk devices because they are so difficult to repair that it's not worth it. Well that was my take on it anyway.

IMO it’s still my view that the manufacture should be making the phone or device however they want, if you don’t want it, don’t buy it, it should be their right to design and create however they like.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Then using that logic, it's a government's prerogative to enact whatever laws they see fit and if that includes laws which mandate maufacturers to follow rules their products' behaviours and/or compositions, then it's their right to enforce those laws however they like.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What exactly is meant by Right to Repair?

 

If it is under warranty, the manufacturer will repair it for free. 

 

If its not under warranty, you are free to do whatever you want with it. No company is stopping you from repairing your device

 

What Louis Rossmann wants is that manufacturers release the schematic of the pcb and diagnostic software and possibly supply parts.

 

I totally disagree with supply of parts. A manufacturer decides how much of a part to manufacture. They should not be forced to manufacture old parts instead of making parts for new devices.

 

Another way is forcing manufacturers to release the ip of the parts so third parties can manufacture them. I also disagree with forcing somebody to release ip.

 

Another thing is third parties illegally manufacturing parts. That should also be illegal.

 

Now we come to schematic. I am not sure if this falls under ip but without access to the original parts,  people like Louis Rossmann can only make substandard repairs. And as I said before I diagree with forcing manufactures to provide parts to third parties.

 

And the last is access to diagnostic software. Again without access to original parts, there is very little you can do with diagnosing a problem. You cant to anything to fix the problem.

 

So it all boils down to manufacturers providing access to original parts to third parties, which I disagree to.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, avg123 said:

What exactly is meant by Right to Repair?

 

If it is under warranty, the manufacturer will repair it for free. 

 

If its not under warranty, you are free to do whatever you want with it. No company is stopping you from repairing your device

 

What Louis Rossmann wants is that manufacturers release the schematic of the pcb and diagnostic software and possibly supply parts.

 

I totally disagree with supply of parts. A manufacturer decides how much of a part to manufacture. They should not be forced to manufacture old parts instead of making parts for new devices.

 

Another way is forcing manufacturers to release the ip of the parts so third parties can manufacture them. I also disagree with forcing somebody to release ip.

 

Another thing is third parties illegally manufacturing parts. That should also be illegal.

 

Now we come to schematic. I am not sure if this falls under ip but without access to the original parts,  people like Louis Rossmann can only make substandard repairs. And as I said before I diagree with forcing manufactures to provide parts to third parties.

 

And the last is access to diagnostic software. Again without access to original parts, there is very little you can do with diagnosing a problem. You cant to anything to fix the problem.

 

So it all boils down to manufacturers providing access to original parts to third parties, which I disagree to.

 

If the manufacturer makes it so you need those in order to repair your device then that is a fair enough request.  There is absolutely no need to hide or hinder the repair process unnecessarily.    In many cases (like with apple) it is just an outright con or fraud attempt.   I say that as being someone with first hand experience of it at apple.

 

 


QuicK and DirtY. Read the CoC it's like a guide on how not to be moron.  Also I don't have an issue with the VS series.

Sometimes I miss contractions like n't on the end of words like wouldn't, couldn't and shouldn't.    Please don't be a dick,  make allowances when reading my posts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, RorzNZ said:

IMO it’s still my view that the manufacture should be making the phone or device however they want, if you don’t want it, don’t buy it, it should be their right to design and create however they like.

Again with the hyperbole. While the end result might be "100% perfect tech and 100% recyclable/repairable" we are not there yet, and no one is pushing for that. Currently, it's "don't take us to court/beat up our kneecaps if *we* replace a fuse in the device *we* purchased". The other things are a strawman.

 

[edit]

PS, how is requiring a replaceable phone battery even "right to repair"? It's recycling/materials/economic rules/laws non relevant to consumers requests to "repair". It's basically a economic measure to lower the cost of materials/battery import/production and the subsequent waste/pollution from e-waste. Very very little to do with consumer protection (see lead acid/car oil pollution and Australia or any other country for example. I don't have the link to hand as I think I lost it, but Australia had a real problem of people dumping cars and thus those liquids all over the bush, as cheaper than driving it to a car scrap yard... so regulation is often needed to stop people harming themselves/others :( ).

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, avg123 said:

What exactly is meant by Right to Repair?

 

If it is under warranty, the manufacturer will repair it for free. 

 

If its not under warranty, you are free to do whatever you want with it. No company is stopping you from repairing your device

 

What Louis Rossmann wants is that manufacturers release the schematic of the pcb and diagnostic software and possibly supply parts.

 

I totally disagree with supply of parts. A manufacturer decides how much of a part to manufacture. They should not be forced to manufacture old parts instead of making parts for new devices.

 

Another way is forcing manufacturers to release the ip of the parts so third parties can manufacture them. I also disagree with forcing somebody to release ip.

 

Another thing is third parties illegally manufacturing parts. That should also be illegal.

 

Now we come to schematic. I am not sure if this falls under ip but without access to the original parts,  people like Louis Rossmann can only make substandard repairs. And as I said before I diagree with forcing manufactures to provide parts to third parties.

 

And the last is access to diagnostic software. Again without access to original parts, there is very little you can do with diagnosing a problem. You cant to anything to fix the problem.

 

So it all boils down to manufacturers providing access to original parts to third parties, which I disagree to.

No to the provision of PCB schematics and tools. What rossman wants is *not to be taken to court* for making/having those PCB diagnostics. Having legit ones *helps* because he then does not have to break IP law from someone else providing them. But if he reverse engineers (which he does) and finds which fuse needs replacing, replaces it, then shows someone else, he is/will/has been taken to court over it.

 

No to the parts. He only wants them to stop threatening to kneecap him for having a fuse or power control chip (which are *NOT* covered by IP and are generic parts and unbranded/no apple logos).

 

He specifically says this in his videos *and the court/law hearing sittings!*

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×