Right to repair

[Dizzyhat]

New Jersey has a push for a right to repair bill that would push tools guides and parts to repair device to shops and consumers.   This would nuke the high repair cost standard that comes with certain electronics and products.

 

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/new-jersey-becomes-the-12th-state-to-consider-right-to-repair-legislation

[DrMacintosh]

The problem with the "Right to repair bill" is that it does not actually protect your right to repair your own device because you will always have that right. What it does is force OEMs like Apple or Microsoft to sell repair shops components so that they can get free buisness. And I don't like that. 

[brwainer]

23 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

The problem with the "Right to repair bill" is that it does not actually protect your right to repair your own device because you will always have that right. What it does is force OEMs like Apple or Microsoft to sell repair shops components so that they can get free buisness. And I don't like that. 

I think you are correct that you will always have the right to repair, but a bill like this is meant to protect/enhance that right by making sure you can actually exercise it. Earlier devices, such as pre-computer cars, CRT TVs, appliances, were easy get spare parts for, even from 3rd party sources. Thus historically you not only had the right to repair, but also the ability to do so. This has been changed by how specialized parts have become in phones, ultraportable laptops, consoles, and even cars and appliances.

[Orangeator]

1 hour ago, brwainer said:

to sell repair shops components so that they can get free buisness.

So the repair shops get free business? I don't understand what you mean by this statement... Can you please elaborate on what you meant here.

[dizmo]

It might not nuke those high prices though. There's nothing there that says how much the OEMs have to charge for the said components. And you know what will happen? The original price of said items are going to go up to counter the costs associated with providing those parts. You're punishing the many to satisfy the needs of the few. 

[tlink]

i wish europe already adopted the right to repair, with the watchdogs actively suing company's not obeying the law.

[Sauron]

3 hours ago, DrMacintosh said:

The problem with the "Right to repair bill" is that it does not actually protect your right to repair your own device because you will always have that right. What it does is force OEMs like Apple or Microsoft to sell repair shops components so that they can get free buisness. And I don't like that. 

How will you enforce your "right to repair your own device" if you can't legally buy a component? This is not a "problem" with the law, it's what makes it useful in the first place. How is it "free business"? Do you think repair shops don't have to work somehow simply because the parts can be bought new instead of having to strip them off of donor boards? Would you say that of a car repair shop? If you said car repair shops should have a stack of dead donor cars to strip parts from because selling them new components would be "free business" you'd be laughed out of the room. Have the same respect for people who repair devices you use every day.

[brwainer]

1 hour ago, Orangeator said:

So the repair shops get free business? I don't understand what you mean by this statement... Can you please elaborate on what you meant here.

Its not about giving repair shops free business. Its about making sure that parts are available for consumers to repair devices in general. Right now for an average consumer their only choice is to bring it back to the manufacturer, who will probably charge significantly more than the "part plus labor plus profit margin" would suggest it should cost, partially to encourage you to just buy a new device instead, or bring it to a tech shop who may be using substandard parts. If the parts are available for purchase, then yes the repair shops would likely get more business, but only because they would be charging closer to what a non-inflated repair cost would be. If companies don't want repair shops to get business in that case, then they just have to charge a competitive price on the repair service that they offer.

 

To be clear, I don't personally have a position on whether this is the "right thing to do". I'm not sure that every product you buy implicitly comes with the ability to get repair parts for it, and that companies should be forced to make repair parts available for purchase. But a car or TV bought in the mid/late 20th century was way easier to get parts and repairs for than devices that are released now, and people who argue for the "right to repair" see that as harming their right, specifically because they can't exercise the right. A right that can't be exercised is akin to not having that right at all. These "Right to Repair" bills seek to return the situation closer to how it was with prior devices.

[Sauron]

1 hour ago, dizmo said:

It might not nuke those high prices though. There's nothing there that says how much the OEMs have to charge for the said components. And you know what will happen? The original price of said items are going to go up to counter the costs associated with providing those parts. You're punishing the many to satisfy the needs of the few. 

Competition would ensure that doesn't happen. And if OEMs try to collectively hike the prices artificially, they'll be in violation of current antitrust laws.

[Orangeator]

32 minutes ago, brwainer said:

But a car or TV bought in the mid/late 20th century was way easier to get parts and repairs for than devices that are released now

 Couldn't a reason for this be that most electronics these days are a lot more advanced/smaller?

[brwainer]

47 minutes ago, Orangeator said:

 Couldn't a reason for this be that most electronics these days are a lot more advanced/smaller?

That is absolutely true, and that is one reason why you can't get third party parts that are as good or better (see: aftermarket car parts) as the original. A cynic will argue that tech companies are taking advantage of this to monopolize you into only getting complete new products. 

 

Another aspect that should not be ignored is that supply chains are complicated. It is simple and easy to say "just make more parts and don't put all of them together into whole devices" but each part has a different lead time (how long it takes from placing an order to getting the part) and are made in different batch sizes. Apple is considered the master of supply chain management because they are able to get almost no buildup of stock happening. This applies to both stock on the shelves, which is what most people think of, but also stock of parts to make new devices, and stock of raw material to make the parts. In such a finely tuned system of parts management, to say "make extra parts for spares and stock them up to sell for repairs" is not trivial. 

 

I don't know the specifics of the right to repair laws that are being considered, in New Jersey and elsewhere. Specifically I don't know for how long after a product is released they are required to be able to sell parts. If its longer than the product is sold for, I can see that being a major pain. If you tell Apple, who changes products annually, or a car manufacturer who might use a certain part for 10 years in a row but another part on only a specific model and year, that they have to have repair parts available for 3 years after production ends, that is a major logistical hurdle. If they make too little, they have to go back to the old production tooling and restart a production line - very expensive. If they make too many, then that part takes up space for a long time, possibly after consumers stop using the product.

 

Based on these issues I am not sure where I stand on the matter. It depends on how the laws are written, which I have not studied yet. Overall I believe in the right to repair, but am unsure about the implementation.

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, Sauron said:

Competition would ensure that doesn't happen. And if OEMs try to collectively hike the prices artificially, they'll be in violation of current antitrust laws.

Unfortunately that's easy for them to step around, They just make sure their repair shops are paying the same inflated costs as the generic repairers.  Money always flows back to the biggest corp, just like shit always flows down hill.

[Orangeator]

52 minutes ago, brwainer said:

That is absolutely true, and that is one reason why you can't get third party parts that are as good or better (see: aftermarket car parts) as the original. A cynic will argue that tech companies are taking advantage of this to monopolize you into only getting complete new products. 

 

Another aspect that should not be ignored is that supply chains are complicated. It is simple and easy to say "just make more parts and don't put all of them together into whole devices" but each part has a different lead time (how long it takes from placing an order to getting the part) and are made in different batch sizes. Apple is considered the master of supply chain management because they are able to get almost no buildup of stock happening. This applies to both stock on the shelves, which is what most people think of, but also stock of parts to make new devices, and stock of raw material to make the parts. In such a finely tuned system of parts management, to say "make extra parts for spares and stock them up to sell for repairs" is not trivial. 

 

I don't know the specifics of the right to repair laws that are being considered, in New Jersey and elsewhere. Specifically I don't know for how long after a product is released they are required to be able to sell parts. If its longer than the product is sold for, I can see that being a major pain. If you tell Apple, who changes products annually, or a car manufacturer who might use a certain part for 10 years in a row but another part on only a specific model and year, that they have to have repair parts available for 3 years after production ends, that is a major logistical hurdle. If they make too little, they have to go back to the old production tooling and restart a production line - very expensive. If they make too many, then that part takes up space for a long time, possibly after consumers stop using the product.

 

Based on these issues I am not sure where I stand on the matter. It depends on how the laws are written, which I have not studied yet. Overall I believe in the right to repair, but am unsure about the implementation.

Wow I got to say I agree with every point you made. Thanks for showing both sides of the story here.

[goodtofufriday]

5 hours ago, DrMacintosh said:

The problem with the "Right to repair bill" is that it does not actually protect your right to repair your own device because you will always have that right. What it does is force OEMs like Apple or Microsoft to sell repair shops components so that they can get free buisness. And I don't like that. 

I like that. I dont want to use shoddy chinese reject components or poorly built replacement parts. 

I want oem at a price i can afford and repair myself. 

[spartaman64]

8 hours ago, DrMacintosh said:

The problem with the "Right to repair bill" is that it does not actually protect your right to repair your own device because you will always have that right. What it does is force OEMs like Apple or Microsoft to sell repair shops components so that they can get free buisness. And I don't like that. 

how do you repair your device if you dont have access to the parts?

[zMeul]

11 hours ago, DrMacintosh said:

The problem with the "Right to repair bill" is that it does not actually protect your right to repair your own device because you will always have that right. What it does is force OEMs like Apple or Microsoft to sell repair shops components so that they can get free buisness. And I don't like that. 

sure ..

that's why they tell you: "you lose the warranty if you remove this sticker" or that sticker, or this one over here, or that other one over there

 

also, how about you don't actually own the thing you bought, you only bought the licence to use it

[dalekphalm]

2 minutes ago, zMeul said:

sure ..

that's why they tell you: "you lose the warranty if you remove this sticker" or that sticker, or this one over here, or that other one over there

In a lot of countries, those stickers are all bark and no bite, totally unenforceable. Depends on where you live of course, but invalidating a warranty by removing those stickers is illegal in many places.

[zMeul]

1 minute ago, dalekphalm said:

In a lot of countries, those stickers are all bark and no bite, totally unenforceable. Depends on where you live of course, but invalidating a warranty by removing those stickers is illegal in many places.

there are countries and different laws or even lack of law

for example, I don't recall in my country a law that prohibits or enables removing/breaking the seals to void the warranty of the products - the sellers will always deny you the warranty claim if they see a broken seal

[dalekphalm]

1 minute ago, zMeul said:

there are countries and different laws or even lack of law

for example, I don't recall in my country a law that prohibits or enables removing/breaking the seals to void the warranty of the products - the sellers will always deny you the warranty claim if they see a broken seal

In a country where no law exists, the company can pretty much get away with it. You'd have to sue them to set precedence in case law, based on some other consumer protection law, or you'd have to convince government to make a new regulation.

[ttam]

11 hours ago, DrMacintosh said:

The problem with the "Right to repair bill" is that it does not actually protect your right to repair your own device because you will always have that right. What it does is force OEMs like Apple or Microsoft to sell repair shops components so that they can get free buisness. And I don't like that. 

That's some of the stupidest shit I've read in a while.

 

As someone in the repair shop world. It's a tough business model because things aren't made to be repaired. They are made to be replaced. You're forced to spend $700 on a new phone when the repair should only cost $30-$100. You can open a lot of these phones, but the chance of breaking something else in the process is 1000%.

[Jito463]

6 hours ago, ttam said:

You can open a lot of these phones, but the chance of breaking something else in the process is 1000%.

Not true.  We repair phones quite often where I work, and - while it is possible to damage something in the process - it's quite rare.

[Princess Luna]

People still believe that laws are made to help the citizens? The big corporations are laughin'

[Ryujin2003]

Certain companies, like Toshiba could have benefited from this. Toshiba didn't want to support devices past the 1 year manufacturer warranty, so they wouldn't produce or provide any manufacturers support to anyone, even repair shops, after the 1 year warranty.

 

If people want their devices to be cheaper to support, they have to take care of them. Don't cheap out and skip the phone case for their $700 phone. Get a surge protector for their brand new desktop. Don't drink coffee while using their laptop on a bus in NYC traffic. Purchase legitimate antivirus.

 

From my repair experience, I'd say that 98% of all issues are preventable. The rest are the hardware failures and software glitches you cannot do anything about. Apple wants to charge an arm and a leg to repair your device? $350 for a screen. Well, that $35 case doesn't look so bad, now does it?

 

The only thing I wish this to expand upon is the specifics of warranty. Certain laptops have warranty stickers but the manufacturer says you can open it and expand RAM and update HDD. Well, why put a warranty sticker over the screw?

 

The issue isn't about manufacturers trying to screw over its consumers. The issue is the idiots that blow up their shit, then try to claim its the manufacturers fault.

 

Case in point? The guy with the bent i7 7700k CPU because it didn't get inserted properly before closing ZIF Arm. Or the guy who installed new RAM and his device won't turn on any more (but he didn't use any anti-static precaution because that part is a myth only........). Not manufacturer's fault, yet people get mad if they have to pay for their own mistakes.

[elfensky]

22 hours ago, DrMacintosh said:

And I don't like that. 

Why? Now repair shops have to skower ebay and alixpress for replacement parts that <<might>> work that the chinese steal off the assembly lines.

 

If this bill passes, OEM will have to SELL the components (not give them away) and give the schematics to repair shops so they'll be able to repair more efficiently and cheaply.

 

The bill started with farmers suing tractor manufacturers for the ability to repair their own tractors. (something about selling them cheaply and making the money on services) So the your own right's also there.

[DrMacintosh]

11 hours ago, ttam said:

It's a tough business model

Too bad. Adapt or fail.