Words aren't enough. We need ACTION.

[Blademaster91]

5 hours ago, sengin said:

Linus advocating for violence to enforce -- at the barrel of a gun -- his views on how others should conduct business is highly inappropriate on a channel viewed by many young, impressionable people. Worse -- he wants to use other people's money to enforce his views. Enforcement is not free.

I'm not sure if you're trolling or being paid by some company opposing right to repair. Violence? What video were you watching?

5 hours ago, sengin said:

More laws is not the answer. The answer is to be informed about what you are buying. If you feel strongly about informing the public, you can set up a service to rate the life-cycle repair-ability of certain popular goods. People who care, can consult your service. For example, I learned phones after the Galaxy S5 don't have user-replaceable batteries, so i don't buy them, because longevity is important to me

Laws that protect and help the consumer are necessary, and good luck with getting a phone with a replaceable battery.

Look at companies like John Deere, if something breaks the equipment won't function correctly unless it's repaired by a technician with special tools,which means down time that isn't necessary and the farmer is loosing money when they can't get work done.

Or Tesla, you have to go to a Tesla dealer, or one Tesla approves for any kind of repair.

5 hours ago, sengin said:

Also, Linus is wrong about planned obsolescence being bad and causing more waste. Many simple thought experiments prove this. In essence, using more materials to create a more durable item uses more resources, and those resources are wasted if the product becomes obsolete before it's useful life is finished. So simple. It's in every engineering textbook. But Linus is not an engineer.

It doesn't take an engineer to figure out that planned obsolesce creates a significant amount of waste, also a product can be durable while being easily repairable by the user, look at any older laptop or phone.

The same is happening with appliances, some company that makes a washing machine or refrigerator can either force you into paying an official technician to to fix your appliance, or even worse tell you they won't service it because they consider a 3 year old washing machine obsolete so you have to buy a new one. Planned obsolescence is happening to cars, you have to go to the dealer for repairs, and some new cars don't even have an oil or transmission dipstick, the owner can't check fluids, so the car of course isn't going to last as long if the car isn't getting basic maintenance.

5 hours ago, sengin said:

You may be mad about other people's waste, but that's what people want. Companies are in the business of providing what their customers want. And their customers want cheap sh!t.

The average consumer doesn't know what they want, and for that reason the companies that oppose right to repair are spending billions to tell the consumer that right to repair is bad or dangerous.

[SolarNova]

14 hours ago, JBee said:

Right to repair is a frequently misunderstood issue, and we’re here to set the record straight.

 

Find more info on Louis Rossmann's GoFundMe here: https://gofundme.com/f/lets-get-right-to-repair-passed

i read the title and immediately thought " rather poor choice or words with whats going on right now in the US ", and thats from a guy living in the UK

 

That being said, i agree with everything you said in the vid.

[CivBase]

10 hours ago, hishnash said:

It is not that they are making deals to not sell it is that they are not making deals to enable the sale. 

 

When you ask a factory to do a custom order you pay for tooling, design etc if the factory, you pay before they even start to make anything. If your a large vendor (like apple, Samsung etc) your tooling costs might be very large since the factory might need to tool up multiple concurrent production lines just for your order, the per unit cost after that work has been done is low. If the factory were to turn around after you have paid for them to build up all this tooling and just sold these chips to other people they would need to create an explicit contract with you to permit them to do this.

According to Rossmann, Intersil explicitly told him they had an agreement with Apple to not produce the part for anyone else.  Even if Rossmann forked over the money to bulk order the part, they could not manufacture it for him per their agreement with Apple.

 

More info: What is Right to Repair? An introduction for curious people. (4:00 to 5:00, screenshot of their email at 4:05)

 

10 hours ago, hishnash said:

Most vendors have really only done this when it involves claims of false representation, eg using third party parts but claiming they are original. I think under right to repair laws the punishment for doing this should be increased it should be explicitly mentioned in the laws that if you operate a repair service you must be transparent about the origin of the parts you are using. 

Tell that to the lawfirm of Kilpatrick Townsend.

 

More info: Responding to criticism regarding right to repair's violation of the non-aggression principle. (4:25 to 9:45)

 

tl;dw: Kilpatrick Townsend (a lawfirm representing Apple) demanded Rossmann remove a video showing people how to fix a problem with an Apple device because the video included a diagram of the electrical traces on the board he was fixing.  His lawyer advised him to comply, but Rossmann fired his lawyer and demanded the lawfirm submit a DMCA takedown for the video.  They didn't follow through, possibly fearing a PR backlash.  Who knows what would have happened if they had?

[kpluck]

First, I support right to repair. But…

 

Quote

"Right to repair supporters know there is no single perfect solution that is ready made right now."

 

Sure, but that doesn't seem to stop them from demanding something be done immediately. Without some careful analysis and thoughtful dialog from a variety of sources, what we will get is a bunch of half-assed government regs that don't give us what we want/need while making more things worse and few things better with the cherry on top being higher prices for everyone.

 

But Linus, you go ahead and keep making breathless, over-the-top videos. Sometimes they are entertaining.

 

-kp

[harryk]

I am not in favor of any regulation that will force businesses to do things such as release parts for sale or expose their IP. This seems to be what "Right to Repair" is pushing for, thus I do not support it. It should be up to the business to decide if they want to spend the resources to support a parts/service distribution system. Forcing this on businesses will greatly increase the barrier to entry for startups who cannot afford to support an essentially parallel business to sell parts.

 

I am in favor of regulations which incentivize businesses to do things which benefit society. If society wants a business to make repairable devices then we need to reward them for doing so. 

 

We as a global society want to reduce waste. One idea is a tax on the sale of new devices which may become waste when they are obsolete. This tax could be coupled with exemptions for actions which lengthen the life of the device, such as repairability. For example, the sale of a smartphone for $1000 could have a waste tax of 20% or $200. If the manufacturer makes the screen freely available as a separate replaceable part, the tax on the value of that part in the original device would be exempted reducing the overall waste tax burden. Further exemptions could be granted for making the schematics open source. 

 

This scheme incentivizes businesses to support independent repair without forcing them to do so, while also establishing a universal motivation for reducing waste.

[CivBase]

12 minutes ago, harryk said:

I am not in favor of any regulation that will force businesses to do things such as release parts for sale or expose their IP. This seems to be what "Right to Repair" is pushing for, thus I do not support it.

Nobody's asking businesses to expose their IP.  The most detailed information being asked for to facilitate repairs, board schematics, is not near enough information to threaten a manufacturer.  That information used to be given out for free as part of owners manuals.  You cannot duplicate a devices with that information.  That information can also be reverse-engineered by someone with a working board, a multimeter, very little technical knowledge, and a lot of time.  In many cases, repair technicians have taken the time to create those schematics for themselves with no help from the manufacturer.

 

As for parts, I really don't know why everyone focuses so hard on this.  Right to repair should not (and does not, in my mind) require manufacturers to supply parts.  You'll almost never hear Louis talk about manufacturers supplying parts in his videos.  A repair technician can source genuine OEM parts from used machines with unrelated defects.  My dad loves working on old cars as a hobby and that's exactly how he gets parts.

 

The actual problem which we need right to repair to fix is how manufacturers go out of their way to make sure replacement parts cannot be *independently* sourced or installed (by serializing parts, claiming used goods as "counterfeits" in customs, making exclusivity deals with third-party suppliers, threatening legal action against techs who share information needed for repairs, etc).

[shadow_ray]

Apple just released a new video:

They focus on carbon neutrality and to be honest it's a nice goal. Is this a response?

[rice guru]

So glad Linus is covering this issue. I've been seeing  louis  struggle ti expose this to a wider audience for years but linus being one of the biggest tech tubers with on of the widest arrays of audience he could actually make waves to other youtubers and really expose this issue and actually take a step forward to getting things passed in the governments. 

[Quackers101]

4 minutes ago, shadow_ray said:

Apple just released a new video:

-snip-

They focus on carbon neutrality and to be honest it's a nice goal. Is this a response?

And by so, they will use this against right to repair and put more money into going against right to repair.

So yes, they are likely want a battle. Their idea is decent, but lacking a way to support recycling as it doesn't see much profit/return and why its already struggling to recycle e-waste to begin with. But if their designs makes it easier to recycle them or reuse? all good? Same about what tesla wanted for their "new batteries".

[OhBoy]

20 minutes ago, shadow_ray said:

Apple just released a new video:

They focus on carbon neutrality and to be honest it's a nice goal. Is this a response?

I love how they conveniently skip over the reduce reuse parts as well. so it is not. they just wanted to plant a seed to point back to that they totally not destroying the environment. if the gofundme page got anywhere near that 6mil goal. as you know it will be a point that will be used to push the R2R. that with longer device life and more autonomy for the device owners.

[Kilrah]

1 hour ago, harryk said:

Forcing this on businesses will greatly increase the barrier to entry for startups who cannot afford to support an essentially parallel business to sell parts.

A startup doesn't have the clout that someone like Apple has to get custom components made and make exclusivity deals with the manufacturers to prevent people from being able to source them, so the problem doesn't exist in the first place. Their products will be using components that you can buy of the shelf from wherever you please, doesn't need to be the manufacturer.

 

And selling the few custom parts like mechanical things / cases isn't something you "can't afford". 

[Taf the Ghost]

1 hour ago, harryk said:

I am not in favor of any regulation that will force businesses to do things such as release parts for sale or expose their IP. This seems to be what "Right to Repair" is pushing for, thus I do not support it. It should be up to the business to decide if they want to spend the resources to support a parts/service distribution system. Forcing this on businesses will greatly increase the barrier to entry for startups who cannot afford to support an essentially parallel business to sell parts.

 

I am in favor of regulations which incentivize businesses to do things which benefit society. If society wants a business to make repairable devices then we need to reward them for doing so. 

 

We as a global society want to reduce waste. One idea is a tax on the sale of new devices which may become waste when they are obsolete. This tax could be coupled with exemptions for actions which lengthen the life of the device, such as repairability. For example, the sale of a smartphone for $1000 could have a waste tax of 20% or $200. If the manufacturer makes the screen freely available as a separate replaceable part, the tax on the value of that part in the original device would be exempted reducing the overall waste tax burden. Further exemptions could be granted for making the schematics open source. 

 

This scheme incentivizes businesses to support independent repair without forcing them to do so, while also establishing a universal motivation for reducing waste.

I think you fail to understand that the real reason this all got going has a lot to do with John Deere basically bricking 500k USD tractors. That's the core issue: companies are basically moving into DLC models for products a buyer has paid a lot of money for, upfront, and the trend will continue to get worse. The more software is in products, the more easily it is for a company to lockout someone that owns the product.

 

The focus is mostly on Apple, right now, because they're the biggest brand in the world and is easier for everyone to focus on. (Basically, niche vs mass market issue.) But the same issues still apply. You can also see the LMG vs Apple issue over the damage Mac Pro. Linus was willing to pay the 3-5k USD to repair the device (it was a badly damage, integrated unit), but Apple wouldn't allow it through their network. LMG ended up having to get grey market parts and questionable firmware hacks to repair a device they paid for, was in current production and were willing to pay to repair. The instant you apply the issue to Cars, you can see why a lot of laws already exist around this. (In the USA, there are Right to Repair laws that variously apply to Cars already. There's even industry standards around them after some fairly recent law passages. It's why you can get App + Adapters for phones that can read all codes now.)

 

There's also abusive monopoly issues that arise with Vendor Lock In. But that's a somewhat different topic.

 

It doesn't mean that every framework on the table will work or help matters. It's a highly complex and evolving issue, which is why it should really be hashed out in legislative bodies. But since that doesn't happen anymore, you're getting ballot initiatives to solve the problem.

[Quackers101]

Lock you out of using the product, having the product not functioning as it should. Paying more for features you already have or had. Like with cars and their DLC like nature, from heated seats that uses more power per mile to have in your car and could function as normal with no software.

[hishnash]

3 hours ago, CivBase said:

According to Rossmann, Intersil explicitly told him they had an agreement with Apple to not produce the part for anyone else.  Even if Rossmann forked over the money to bulk order the part, they could not manufacture it for him per their agreement with Apple.

Yep, apple apis for tooling and design so unless they had a deal to let them make it for other people they would not be able to do so. Does not require apple to have a contract that says they can't make it for other people just requires the regular contract to not mention selling toothed people since this is standard practice when you pay for R&D you by default become the only person you can buy that part.

 

 

58 minutes ago, CivBase said:

Nobody's asking businesses to expose their IP.  The most detailed information being asked for to facilitate repairs, board schematics, is not near enough information to threaten a manufacture.

That alone is not enough people are also requesting parts, and that is the issue. Does Apple/Samsung etc need to keep producing parts for 5 years after they stop selling a product or 10 years or 20 years... many people in right to repair are asking for more that board schematics since they expect many companies to stop supplying parts very soon after they stop shipping that product (as it might be quite costly to continue to supply those parts) so there is a lot of demand the companies not only release boad diagrams but also spec sheets (so that alternative solutions can be found), this is an issue since the likes of Apple etc do not have the implicit right to share these spec sheets of components they use, it at minim would require them to write new contracts with their suppliers. 

 

 

35 minutes ago, Kilrah said:

A startup doesn't have the clout that someone like Apple has to get custom components made and make exclusivity deals with the manufacturers to prevent people from being able to source them, so the problem doesn't exist in the first place. Their products will be using components that you can buy of the shelf from wherever you please, dosn't need to be the manufacturer.

Thats not true almost all electronics will have some custom designed elements (sometimes this is just the PCB). You do not need an expliscit contract that forbids a manufacture from selling a part to a third party, if you paid for the design and tooling of that product line then implicitly the factory can not just start selling it to other.

The factories that make LTT merchandise can't just take the designs and tooling that LTT paid for and start to sell them to others, LTT don't need to have any extra contract to forbid this it is part of every custom design contract, LTT are not forbidding the factory the right to sell it to others they are rather not granting the right since implicitly LTT own that right.

Just consider you are a 3d article's and you are contracted to make assets for a Game (the games produces send you some guidelines of what they want you to make) you make these assets but then after doing that you continue to use these assets in other clients work, that is not how the world works (at least not if your an honest person)

 

44 minutes ago, Kilrah said:

And selling the few custom parts like mechanical things / cases isn't something you "can't afford". 

The depends on for how long you are expected to continue to stock them, 5years, 10years... can you turn around and say "we can't stock these since the company that makes them has gone out of bissense" or are you required to go back to the design board (and risk Patent law suites) to design around that component providing an alternative (possibly at a massive loss). 

 

Are you are permitted to require proof that these parts are being used for repair of the products you sold, or are you implicitly forced to become a retailer for raw components.

 

Key in this is what price can you charge? Apple and many others would want to ensure that if you purchased all the raw parts from them and build the product it would cost a good fraction more than just buying it directly from them. For some people who make a loss on the hardware (Sony, Amazon, etc) are they expected to also may a loss on the parts they sell for repair? In the video they talked about the price apple charge for screen replacement, well given the total price of the phone if apple were to provide all raw components likely charge 200 to 300 for a screen is the correct promotion of the total sale price to ensure that the sum cost of all parts comes to something greater than the price of buying new.

 

If your someone line apple you have very large bulk orders to factories so you get discount parts prices but as part of those deals (so that you don't flood the market with cheap parts) you are forbidden from just selling them retail, you can use them for repair but you are required to keep very detailed audit logs. Some parts suppliers (see intels laptop chips) would very much not want the parts you are using to end up on regular open market since that would reduce their ability to charge more for these parts to customers who buy in smaller volumes.  

[Kilrah]

46 minutes ago, hishnash said:

Thats not true almost all electronics will have some custom designed elements (sometimes this is just the PCB). You do not need an expliscit contract that forbids a manufacture from selling a part to a third party, if you paid for the design and tooling of that product line then implicitly the factory can not just start selling it to other.

If you watch the context of Rossmann's videos you'll see he repairs the boards, and makes a point about the individual components. 

 

Apple "paid for the design and tooling" but by making some insignificant change to the component that isn't there to make it better, but just so that the standard one isn't compatible so you need theirs, and since it's theirs you can't have it. 

 

46 minutes ago, hishnash said:

Apple and many others would want to ensure that if you purchased all the raw parts from them and build the product it would cost a good fraction more than just buying it directly from them.

Sure, you can charge 2x the cost to prevent that, make a resonable margin that sustains the parts selling business and it all works. Apple does 10x, only so that it's too expensive and you buy a new device instead of repairing. 

[CivBase]

You know what's sad?  LTT's main channel has 13M subs.  If just 10% of them donated $5, that GoFundMe campaign would blow past it's $6M goal.  Just 1-in-10 LTT subs donating less than the price of a mediocre Subway sandwich.  That video alone is already over 1M views in under a day, but the campaign has a total of fewer than 14k donations.

 

Meanwhile anti-right-to-repair lobbyists can summon $6M in the blink of an eye.  But they don't even have to.  All they have to do is keep confusing people about what right to repair is.

 

We're not asking manufacturers to hand over confidential design details.  We're not asking for manufacturers to re-design their products to prioritize repairability.  We're not asking for manufacturers to support third-party parts.  We're not asking for manufacturers to provide repair services at all, much less for free.  We're not asking manufacturers to even provide parts.

 

We just want the freedom to repair our own devices without having to seek the manufacturer's permission (eg serialization and repair partnership programs) and without having to deal with illegitimate legal threats (eg copyright and counterfeit claims) when sharing and sourcing the necessary parts and schematics.

 

1 hour ago, hishnash said:

Yep, apple apis for tooling and design so unless they had a deal to let them make it for other people they would not be able to do so.

Looks a lot like Intersil's APIs, tooling, and design to me. I don't see Apple's fingerprints anywhere on this thing.  It even has a detailed, publicly-accessible datasheet and everything.

 

https://www.renesas.com/us/en/products/power-power-management/dc-dc-converters/step-upstep-down-buck-boost/buck-boost-regulators-integrated-fets/isl9120-compact-high-efficiency-low-power-buck-boost-regulator

 

https://www.renesas.com/us/en/document/dst/isl9120-datasheet

 

FYI: Intersil is a subsidy of Renesas.

 

1 hour ago, hishnash said:

That alone is not enough people are also requesting parts, and that is the issue. Does Apple/Samsung etc need to keep producing parts for 5 years after they stop selling a product or 10 years or 20 years...

Once again, right to repair is not about asking manufacturers to provide parts.  Many supporters of right to repair are advocating for that, but it's not an inherent ask of right to repair.  Personally, I disagree with the idea of implementing regulation which would force manufacturers to make parts available.  It's often an unnecessary economic burden for the manufacturer (worst case scenario, parts can still be sourced from used machines).  It's hard to nail down what parts should be supplied in the first place (main board assembly?  CPU?  CPU dye?  transistor?).  It's hard to determine what the price limitations for those parts should be.  And it's just hard to enforce that kind of regulation.

 

Luckily, the direct ballot initiative in question would not require manufacturers to supply parts so far as I can tell.  I can't find anything in Massachusetts's General Laws, Part I, Title XV, Chapter 93K which would indicate such a requirement.

 

1 hour ago, hishnash said:

many people in right to repair are asking for more that board schematics since they expect many companies to stop supplying parts very soon after they stop shipping that product (as it might be quite costly to continue to supply those parts) so there is a lot of demand the companies not only release boad diagrams but also spec sheets (so that alternative solutions can be found), this is an issue since the likes of Apple etc do not have the implicit right to share these spec sheets of components they use, it at minim would require them to write new contracts with their suppliers. 

I've been following right to repair for a while and I've never heard of anyone asking for design documents which would enable them to reproduce parts on their own once the supplier stops.  Even if someone is doing that, it doesn't mean the whole right to repair initiative should be abandoned.

 

Besides, that's definitely not part of the direct ballot initiative Louis Rossmann is attempting.  The following comes straight from the MA law which Rossmann's campaign is trying to add consumer electronics to.

 

General Laws, Part I, Title XV, Chapter 93K, Section 3:

"Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to require a manufacturer to divulge a trade secret."

 

General Laws, Part I, Title XV, Chapter 93K, Section 5:

"Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to require manufacturers or dealers to provide an owner or independent repair facility access to non-diagnostic and repair information provided by a manufacturer to a dealer or by a dealer to a manufacturer pursuant to the terms of a franchise agreement."

 

1 hour ago, hishnash said:

this is an issue since the likes of Apple etc do not have the implicit right to share these spec sheets of components they use, it at minim would require them to write new contracts with their suppliers.

Rossmann had a very good video discussing this very issue with a System76 engineer.  System76 seems to be getting along with this problem just fine, even though they're much smaller than Apple.

 

System76 laptop engineer SUPPORTS Right to Repair; interview with Louis Rossmann

[harryk]

2 hours ago, Taf the Ghost said:

I think you fail to understand that the real reason this all got going has a lot to do with John Deere basically bricking 500k USD tractors. That's the core issue: companies are basically moving into DLC models for products a buyer has paid a lot of money for, upfront, and the trend will continue to get worse. The more software is in products, the more easily it is for a company to lockout someone that owns the product.

Ok, but if John Deere wants to do that as a business they are free to do so. Don't make laws telling John Deere what they can and cannot do. Instead incentivize them. Offer rewards for making their software tools available and accessible. 

[CivBase]

4 minutes ago, harryk said:

Ok, but if John Deere wants to do that as a business they are free to do so. Don't make laws telling John Deere what they can and cannot do. Instead incentivize them.

If John Deere should be legally allowed to break my stuff, then should I legally be allowed to break theirs?  They have a plant just a few blocks down the road from my house and I'm sure I could do a lot of damage.  That sounds like a pretty strong incentive to me.

[OhBoy]

21 minutes ago, harryk said:

Ok, but if John Deere wants to do that as a business they are free to do so. Don't make laws telling John Deere what they can and cannot do. Instead incentivize them. Offer rewards for making their software tools available and accessible. 

I hate to break it to you but the incentivizing companies never pays off. I am saying this as you can see many governmental grants for pharmaceutical companies to research and find cures for rare and dangerous illness. They have the cake and eat it too. as in they get paid to do the research then turn around and sell whatever findings they obtain from the fully tax payer funded  grant. this also happens else were with Research grants btw.

 

what you advocating for to me at least, is like saying the bakery should not be forced to depose of rotten ingredients or fix their rat infestation problem as it is too costly for the bakery. so instead we should give them some tax rebate or some other kickbacks for keeping their bakery clean.

 

your phone is that vital to everything nowadays and the fact that such critical device is hanging by a thread should it ever break you need to beg for the device maker to allow you to get your data back or just fix that one part is clearly a problem. many ppl have already encountered this when they had to fall back to their old laptops and tablets for their kids and working from home. in fact that was the reason why Rossmann was able to keep his store open. and many ppl did visit him to fix their old out of warranty Apple devices.

[Shahnewaz]

We need to support a movement like this over here. Or start one.

[Taf the Ghost]

1 hour ago, harryk said:

Ok, but if John Deere wants to do that as a business they are free to do so. Don't make laws telling John Deere what they can and cannot do. Instead incentivize them. Offer rewards for making their software tools available and accessible. 

So you have a bank roll to just write off a couple of 500k tractors because no one knew it would be an issue when they were bought & is only an issue because of decisions by the company? 

 

Also, what's your take on Lemon Laws? Those bad as well?

[harryk]

 

1 hour ago, OhBoy said:

I hate to break it to you but the incentivizing companies never pays off. I am saying this as you can see many governmental grants for pharmaceutical companies to research and find cures for rare and dangerous illness. They have the cake and eat it too. as in they get paid to do the research then turn around and sell whatever findings they obtain from the fully tax payer funded  grant. this also happens else were with Research grants btw.

If the incentive doesn't work then we need a better one. The free market arrived at the current situation by natural means. Removing the freedom from the free market is not a good solution. Finding ways to sway the free market by offering economic incentives is.

 

Also, just because research is funded by a grant via tax money does not mean the results of the research are automatically owned by the government or made available in the public domain (unless stipulated in the original grant). The government awards grants for things they want to happen but wouldn't otherwise. The government pays for the research, a new cure is discovered so public health is improved, and the pharmaceutical company makes money on selling the cure. It's a win win.

7 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

So you have a bank roll to just write off a couple of 500k tractors because no one knew it would be an issue when they were bought & is only an issue because of decisions by the company? 

I'm not sure what you are referring to here. My point is that John Deere should be rewarded for making their software tools available rather than only enable certified John Deere technicians to service the tractors.

8 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

Also, what's your take on Lemon Laws? Those bad as well?

I think Lemon Laws are great. If a manufacturer sells me a new car which has unsolvable issues then I should be able to return it for a full refund. That's just basic warranty.

[Taf the Ghost]

1 hour ago, OhBoy said:

I hate to break it to you but the incentivizing companies never pays off. I am saying this as you can see many governmental grants for pharmaceutical companies to research and find cures for rare and dangerous illness. They have the cake and eat it too. as in they get paid to do the research then turn around and sell whatever findings they obtain from the fully tax payer funded  grant. this also happens else were with Research grants btw.

 

what you advocating for to me at least, is like saying the bakery should not be forced to depose of rotten ingredients or fix their rat infestation problem as it is too costly for the bakery. so instead we should give them some tax rebate or some other kickbacks for keeping their bakery clean.

 

your phone is that vital to everything nowadays and the fact that such critical device is hanging by a thread should it ever break you need to beg for the device maker to allow you to get your data back or just fix that one part is clearly a problem. many ppl have already encountered this when they had to fall back to their old laptops and tablets for their kids and working from home. in fact that was the reason why Rossmann was able to keep his store open. and many ppl did visit him to fix their old out of warranty Apple devices.

I know people like the point about prescription drugs, even though it's actually not true. The vast, vast majority of the cost is bringing a viable candidate to market. The baseline research is a very small amount of it. (Production facilities can run into the 10s to 100s of millions, as well. They're not Silicon Nodes, but they aren't cheap either.) Also, incentive structures can work, look up "Orphan Drugs" if you want to read up in the Pharma space.

 

That said, he's really arguing something like the FDA (or your local system) shouldn't really exist. Consumers want Standards. (And cheap prices, which can be mutually exclusive at times.) Right now, especially with everything going to Mobile Apps, Consumers simply lack protection standards in the space. It took Cars a very long time (and it's been a decades long back & forth) to get to a reasonable spot. I'd expect the same to happen with all Connected Devices. GM was, at a time, the world's biggest company, as well. We're just seeing the same cycle of problems.

 

It's going to be a long, drawn out issue spanning decades. Companies need space to operate & innovate, but Consumers also should be able to reasonably expect to repair devices that are modular in nature along with having the ability to access their Data efficiently. 

[CivBase]

39 minutes ago, harryk said:

I think Lemon Laws are great. If a manufacturer sells me a new car which has unsolvable issues then I should be able to return it for a full refund. That's just basic warranty.

Then why is it okay for a manufacturer to make otherwise-solvable issues unsolvable?  Or only solvable by them for whatever they think it's worth?

[OhBoy]

53 minutes ago, harryk said:

If the incentive doesn't work then we need a better one. The free market arrived at the current situation by natural means. Removing the freedom from the free market is not a good solution. Finding ways to sway the free market by offering economic incentives is.

 

Also, just because research is funded by a grant via tax money does not mean the results of the research are automatically owned by the government or made available in the public domain (unless stipulated in the original grant). The government awards grants for things they want to happen but wouldn't otherwise. The government pays for the research, a new cure is discovered so public health is improved, and the pharmaceutical company makes money on selling the cure. It's a win win.

I suppose this is where we diverge while I dont wish to divulge into the research grant and all. I find it rather obscene that in any other grant program such stipulation is written. as in you cant just work on a research with a grant from an entity, without them having a say on  how the result of the research is managed. But I guess American bribery works wonder no?

and to add on the "Better incentive" issue, all I can say is look on how the US is handling connecting the rural areas to the internet. offering bags and bags of cash to those ISP on the pinky promise that they will truly this time connect those areas only for them to not do that and blame the US for not offering a better incentive. which guess what, the US then tries again once a new administration comes. Talk about having your cake and eating your neighbors.

 

And those are very much life impacting products that the market just does not seem to care. Rural areas should not be treated like some 3rd class citizen because they are not tightly packed together for max profit for ISP. nor is someone with a life changing illness that they have due to genetics or other factors beyond their control.

 

There is this idea of carrot and stick, that would make almost any incentive a gosh darn fantastic one. if a company wants to take advantage of any incentive then they need to be punished for every time they break their end of the bargain.

 

 

1 hour ago, Taf the Ghost said:

Also, incentive structures can work, look up "Orphan Drugs" if you want to read up in the Pharma space.

I fail to see what you trying to say here. the Orphan Drug Act gives financial incentive for pharmaceutical companies to develop drugs for a small less than 200K iirc. Only for the same companies to go back to the market and sell those drugs a huge markup. which violate the spirit of Orphan drugs. They are meant to help out the most vulnerable who happened to have not the best luck medically with those rare illness. This would be if you give a patient in need a free transplant surgery only to hit them with full priced drugs that they have to take for life.

 

besides that yeah that is what I was eluding to with the bakery example. Consumer protection is not killing the free market as you know what would? adding sawdust and other white particles to flour to increase the bread made. you cant have a market if everyone is dead or not touching the whole industry due to many dead. but I think regulation is already long over due with the new age markets. Be it gambling masquerading as gaming, or devices that you dont own thanks to their primary features being depended on the cloud to name a few.