The Right to Repair Continues

[Trik'Stari]

12 hours ago, DrMacintosh said:

States should not have this right

Yes. They absolutely should. If you want to do business in society, you have to meet that societies standards.

 

 

If the majority of the states did this (passed this bill), it would become consitutional law and congress couldn't stop it. That's how a democracy works.

[Mooshi]

13 hours ago, KOMTechAndGaming said:

What happens when your non tech person attempts repair something and it goes wrong?

A new entry for the dealing with non-techies thread from the poor soul who dealt with that person lmao

[risk]

One of the great things with opensource software is that if you have the will and skill you can fix things and improve on them. More importantly you can easily learn from it, educate yourself, and eventually have a greater chance of contributing to the sum of human knowledge.

 

That said, another way to contribute to the sum of all human knowledge is to develop something useful, sell it to consumers, invest into research and accumulate value and accumulate sales.

 

Usually, lectures in universities are free for anyone to attend.

Most companies implement some in-house training, or do knowledge-transfer and sharing between employees in some form.

 

You have your equalizers in opensource and universities and your diversity / imbalance creation in companies and economies - those two forces will always tug on each other, they can't exist without one another, it's one of the ways in which this civilization works.

 

That said, I think if you're forcing people to go out of their way to fix or get support your product, it's a shit product. As a user/consumer you should absolutely have the right to go elsewhere for advice and support, I think that right should be regulated and protected and anyone should be able to offer support and repair for the product.

 

The bit on repair.org that says "It requires manufacturers to provide owners and independent repair businesses with fair access to service information and replacement parts" I think that makes sense for the company manufacturing the product as well. The company making the product already has the advantage so if the business is managed well, the risk to business not only that it's not high, but it actually increases the value of the product and de-risks how to handle issues. For example, if you need to do a recall, it's much cheaper to have all that workforce of repairmen at the ready - having it decreases business risk.

[DrMacintosh]

9 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

If the majority of the states did this (passed this bill), it would become consitutional law and congress couldn't stop it.

Thats not how constitutional laws are passed, there is a lot more to it than that. 

 

And considering our current congress, I wouldn't be to sure about that. 

[Jito463]

14 hours ago, Drak3 said:

No, they can't. Certain federal laws can override state law, but this ain't one of them.

I already had this argument, it went nowhere.  DM believes that "might makes right" (see below), which is the antithesis of the founders' vision for this country, and the reason we were formed - not as a democracy, as is commonly repeated - but as a representative republic.  Which was done to ensure the majority couldn't take away the rights of the minority.  As the saying goes (commonly attributed to Benjamin Franklin), "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner".  I think we all know where the vote goes in that scenario.

21 hours ago, DrMacintosh said:

Regardless, the Federal Government has control over the states. The Federal Government has the Military, whatever it says, goes.

 

[DrMacintosh]

1 minute ago, Jito463 said:

I already had this argument, it went nowhere.  DM believes that "might makes right" (see below), which is the antithesis of the founders' vision for this country, and the reason we were formed - not as a democracy, as is commonly repeated - but as a representative republic.  Which was done to ensure the majority couldn't take away the rights of the minority.  As the saying goes (commonly attributed to Benjamin Franklin), "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner".  I think we all know where the vote goes in that scenario.

 

The Supremacy Clause is the provision in Article Six, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution that establishes the United States Constitution, federal statutes, and treaties as "the supreme law of the land."

[Jito463]

2 hours ago, DrMacintosh said:

Thats not how constitutional laws are passed, there is a lot more to it than that. 

On this point we are in agreement.  Constitutional changes require far more work than just a bunch of states passing a similar law.  Even having a federal version of said law does not make it Constitutional.  It either requires a super majority in Congress (both House and Senate) or a States Convention to make changes to the Constitution itself.

[Drak3]

3 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

DM believes

a significant amount of things that aren't right. But hopefully someone else will learn from this.

 

4 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

As the saying goes (commonly attributed to Benjamin Franklin), "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner".  I think we all know where the vote goes in that scenario.

I'd bet they'd all fancy a lovely leg of the chicken variety. Just to spite me.

[Jito463]

2 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

The Supremacy Clause is the provision in Article Six, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution that establishes the United States Constitution, federal statutes, and treaties as "the supreme law of the land."

Yes, but that only extends so far as the powers which are granted unto the federal government.  Only the powers expressly defined in the Constitution belong to the federal government, all others belong to the States and to the people, as I've repeatedly pointed out to you.

[DrMacintosh]

1 minute ago, Jito463 said:

Only the powers expressly defined in the Constitution belong to the federal government, all others belong to the States and to the people, as I've repeatedly pointed out to you.

So how does that affect the fact the Weed is illegal on a federal level? 

 

Oh wait....

[Trik'Stari]

5 hours ago, DrMacintosh said:

Thats not how constitutional laws are passed, there is a lot more to it than that. 

 

And considering our current congress, I wouldn't be to sure about that. 

Congress or states can propose laws. Congress always has to get 3/4ths of the state legislatures to vote yes on something for it to become an amendment.

 

Or, and this has never been done, 2/3rds of the states can vote for a convention of states to amend the constitution.

 

Unless of course you are talking about "resolutions" which are somehow different and require either a signature from the president, or a 2/3rds majority in each house.

 

Not to mention the glaring problem of having a significant number of states legalize something, and the federal government trying to say "no". You've basically just committed career suicide.

[kirashi]

16 hours ago, Fetzie said:

Something else to consider is that the manufacturer will design the software for specific expansion cards and peripherals. If you use an out of spec part then it is your problem if it doesn't work and I would totally understand the manufacturer if they turned around and said that they can only help you if the parts are the ones they certified as working.

 

We manufacturer telephone systems at work. If a customer puts a nonsupported ISDN or analogue expansion card in the system then it can lead to all kinds of problems. I don't see why we should have to fix those problems when we have a list of compatible cards.

For the majority of consumers, I agree, because most people would blame the hardware manufacturer for their own incompetence. However, laws don't require a company to support out-of-spec modifications to hardware - if I want to attempt to resurrect an old analogue PBX system for whatever reason, but the software running on the main computer doesn't support such a thing, I'm going to want to replace that software. If I cannot, then that hardware is as good as dead to me because my inability to run my own code on it is being blocked.

 

It's the same as the lawsuit that happened in the EU over the PS3's Other OS feature, albeit that suit was for false advertising practices because Sony removed a feature prominently printed on the side of every retail box sold in stores. However, it set a precedence that once we buy hardware, such as a game console, we should be allowed to run whatever OS we desire on it, and not be locked to an OS that will eventually become unsupported. Again, I don't believe Sony should be obligated to actually help develop another OS, but by no means should they be allowed to lock down the hardware bootloader in such a way that would prevent another OS from running on it.

 

We paid for and own the hardware, and thus should be able to use it for whatever [legal] purpose we desire.

[79wjd]

58 minutes ago, kirashi said:

For the majority of consumers, I agree, because most people would blame the hardware manufacturer for their own incompetence. However, laws don't require a company to support out-of-spec modifications to hardware - if I want to attempt to resurrect an old analogue PBX system for whatever reason, but the software running on the main computer doesn't support such a thing, I'm going to want to replace that software. If I cannot, then that hardware is as good as dead to me because my inability to run my own code on it is being blocked.

 

It's the same as the lawsuit that happened in the EU over the PS3's Other OS feature, albeit that suit was for false advertising practices because Sony removed a feature prominently printed on the side of every retail box sold in stores. However, it set a precedence that once we buy hardware, such as a game console, we should be allowed to run whatever OS we desire on it, and not be locked to an OS that will eventually become unsupported. Again, I don't believe Sony should be obligated to actually help develop another OS, but by no means should they be allowed to lock down the hardware bootloader in such a way that would prevent another OS from running on it.

 

We paid for and own the hardware, and thus should be able to use it for whatever [legal] purpose we desire.

You have to remember that perception is more important than reality. People like Apple products because they generally 'just work'. I've seen people get pissy with Apple when a third party repair shop broke something. So preventing people from using out of spec hardware or limiting the viability of third party repair centers is sometimes better than allowing them to use it/them and then telling them to 'fuck off' when they have a problem. Of course, at the same time, saying you can fix their problem for $800 thereby forcing them to a repair shop doesn't necessarily make a customer happy either (but presumably Apple has done a decent amount of market research on the subject). 

 

The thing is that there is no way to make everyone happy, and at the end of the day, Apple should do what is best for them as a company. And the best thing they can do (at least based on the research they have surely done) is to just limit hardware and to limit third party repair services. It may not be the cheapest or most convenient option for the consumer all the time, but it leads to a happier consumer base. 

[Jito463]

11 hours ago, djdwosk97 said:

I've seen people get pissy with Apple when a third party repair shop broke something. So preventing people from using out of spec hardware or limiting the viability of third party repair centers is sometimes better than allowing them to use it/them and then telling them to 'fuck off' when they have a problem. Of course, at the same time, saying you can fix their problem for $800 thereby forcing them to a repair shop doesn't necessarily make a customer happy either (but presumably Apple has done a decent amount of market research on the subject).

Speaking as someone who works at one of those "third party" repair shops, one of the biggest gripes I have with Apple is their locking down the hardware to make it nigh on impossible to replace certain things.  The home button, for example.

 

We recently replaced a broken screen on an iPhone 7+, because it was far cheaper through us than through Apple.  The customer had a white screen, and wanted to switch to black while we were replacing it.  So, in order to keep the phone looking the same, we ordered in a black home button as a replacement.  The screen and digitizer worked beautifully, no issues whatsoever.  The home button would not function.  At all.  Not just the fingerprint scanner, as in previous models, but it would not even work as just a home button.

 

There was nothing wrong with the replacement button, it was due to Apple locking down their hardware.  We were forced to reinstall the customer's original white home button on the black screen to make it function.  While I understand a security aspect to this (someone stealing a phone then replacing the home button to gain access), there's no reason they couldn't implement a way for the customer to activate the new home button through use of their fingerprint/PIN/AppleID/etc.  Instead, they take away the ability completely, unless you pay an exorbitant fee to have them repair it.  And I question if they'd replace the screen with a different color, as the customer requested.

 

That's just one of the many issues I have with Apple products.

Edited July 6, 2017 by Jito463
iPhone 7, not 8.....

[79wjd]

40 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

There was nothing wrong with the replacement button, it was due to Apple locking down their hardware.  We were forced to reinstall the customer's original white home button on the black screen to make it function.  While I understand a security aspect to this (someone stealing a phone then replacing the home button to gain access), there's no reason they couldn't implement a way for the customer to activate the new home button through use of their fingerprint/PIN/AppleID/etc.  Instead, they take away the ability completely, unless you pay an exorbitant fee to have them repair it.  And I question if they'd replace the screen with a different color, as the customer requested.

 

That's just one of the many issues I have with Apple products.

I have to assume there is some legitimate reason as to why Apple prevents swapping the home button as it's pretty easy to replace the screen and use the old home button and it's not the home button that is usually the thing that needs replacing (even less so now that it isn't a physical button). Although I'm not quite sure what that reason is -- if you turn off the phone then you need to use your PIN to unlock it anyway....maybe it's possible to hot swap the button (with/without special equipment) and they want to prevent that from happening. 

 

I had an HDD die in my late 2007 15" MBP that was still under warranty and so they were going to replace it for free. I asked if I could pay to upgrade it from the 120gb it came with to a 320gb and they said they're not allowed to do that. I don't know if the policy has changed since then, but I would be extremely surprised if they would change the color of the screen (it would create confusion if you were still under warranty). 

[Jito463]

I just realized, I typed iPhone 8 instead of 7, LOL. 

 

Corrected now.