
Why We Must Fight for the Right to Repair Our Electronics - sohkamyung
https://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/conservation/why-we-must-fight-for-the-right-to-repair-our-electronics
======
amckinlay
What about the right to _use_ our electronics? Google has been silently
pushing their "SafetyNet" APIs into Android, including an "attestation" API[1]
that dynamically fetches and runs an opaque binary program[2] served and
signed by Google that collects whatever data they deem necessary to verify the
"integrity" of a device.

Devices that are rooted will not fail to attest via the API. Devices where the
user has chosen to install a custom ROM will fail to attest (even with a
locked bootloader and no root). Apps from Google Play can use these APIs to
decide whether to work on a user's device.

This is macOS SIP taken to a different level. You can't watch Netflix and
whatever other app decides to use these APIs unless Google has complete
control over your device, including the ability to remotely collect and
transmit opaque and arbitrary data at any time. This is a dishonest attempt to
disguise a draconian DRM scheme as pro-user, pro-safety, anti-virus/rootkit.
We're at the point where you don't even own your own filesystem anymore on a
Linux device. I think this is a step beyond traditional DRM, including
traditional hardware content protection.

[1]
[https://developer.android.com/training/safetynet/attestation...](https://developer.android.com/training/safetynet/attestation.html)
[2] [https://koz.io/inside-safetynet/](https://koz.io/inside-safetynet/)

~~~
cyphar
Yet another reason why we shouldn't accept being sold such proprietary
garbage. SafetyNet is another attempt at creating a system similar to
Treacherous Boot[1] -- similar to what people feared that UEFI's "Secure Boot"
would become (luckily we avoided that fate on x86 systems, but all of the
Windows RT devices are by definition "Treacherous Boot").

I would personally _love_ if we could get proprietary software to become
illegal (or for there to be some sort of disincentive such as taxing
proprietary software, or enforcing and extending warranties on proprietary
software). But large proprietary software companies hold such sway in politics
that hoping for that doesn't really help. It would be a much better idea to
simply stop buying their crap, and helping others around you "break the
shackles" (as it were). Digital Restrictions Management is something that I
always mention when people talk about Netflix or other such streaming services
-- because once you explain the issues with those kinds of services I find
that most people are at least intrigued by alternatives (which usually have
features that the DRM systems don't, because DRM has always been clunky as
they're trying to accomplish something that is effectively not possible).

[1]:
[http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/drm.html](http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/drm.html)

~~~
agmcleod
I feel like taxing proprietary software, or making it illegal would be awful.
Many companies big to small run businesses off of proprietary software. You
have the big players like Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, and Facebook. Not sure how
some of these compare in size, but you also have Github, Shopify, Squarespace,
Reddit, Atlassian, Basecamp, robo advisor companies. Then you consider not
purely based online companies like banks or retail stores that sell their
products online, or give you the ability to trade ETFs. Some of those they
could use open stuff instead, as they make money off of trades.

I do agree that making DRM is a losing battle, and they are transferring that
cost to legitimate customers. Really though I don't have much other options
for streaming. Amazon prime has the same setup, and CraveTV probably does too.
Though Crave doesn't have much for content that I'm interested in.

~~~
cyphar
> I feel like taxing proprietary software, or making it illegal would be
> awful.

Maybe taxing on the _distribution_ of proprietary software would be more
palatable? After all, software that is written can only become proprietary if
you distribute it to other people under a non-free license. I personally think
the warranty idea is much softer on companies (while still giving some more
protection for end-users).

I don't think banks should be taxed for having propreitary systems. I do have
a problem with SaaS[1] companies, and companies which make money of selling
software which is proprietary -- because they are actively creating a monopoly
on the expertise in and ability to support their particular software (known
more politely as vendor lock-in). Not to mention that proprietary software
developers incredibly often mistreat their users through a variety of schemes.

[1]: [https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-
really-s...](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-
serve.en.html)

~~~
agmcleod
That would then also apply to games. Anything that really runs on a device.

Really I think we just need better regulation around it all. So making sure
that you are allowed to hack your own device if you wish. Able to extract your
data. SaaS companies being required to give you data exports (unless unsafe to
do so).

~~~
cyphar
I'm not understanding why it matters what the software is. Modern games are
already being used as a glorified way of getting more money out of their users
(micro-transactions, "loot boxes", endless DLCs, multiple tiers, etc). It's
not as though they'll stop making money (with "gambling simulators" and micro-
transactions alone you can make hundreds of dollars out of any given user).

Taxing proprietary software distribution is a form of regulation. The ideas
you propose are too piece-meal and won't actually solve the underlying
problems -- namely that proprietary software is used as a tool to abuse its
users. This is something that is inherent to the power dynamic between a
developer and the users of proprietary software, regulation won't help.

------
xahrepap
Here's a related thought: what if the law stated something along the lines of,
if DRM/hardware locks/etc prevent you or a 3rd party of your choosing from
repairing, then the party who owns the lock should be responsible for the
repairs (including costs)

Then a company can decide if they're in the business of licencing or selling,
and make their decisions accordingly. it could also help establish a line
between ownership of the device vs of the license.

~~~
CamperBob2
DRM has always represented an attempt on the part of content owners to seize
more territory than the framers of US copyright law intended. Copyright was
supposed to be a bargain between the creators and the commons. In return for
the rightsholder's agreement to release the material into the public domain
upon expiration, the government would grant a temporary legal monopoly.

Unfortunately the first part of the copyright bargain is implicit, not part of
the law. With DRM, rightsholders get to have their cake -- _our_ cake -- and
eat it too. Not only is the protection granted by copyright now effectively
perpetual, but they've purchased additional legislation such as the DMCA and
endless copyright term extensions that punish people who are trying to claim
their half of the bargain.

IMHO copyright should not apply to anything with DRM. Rightsholders should be
forced to decide whether they want a temporary legal monopoly with no
technical protection, or a permanent technical monopoly with no legal
protection.

~~~
smaddox
Copyright is not, and never was, for creators. It's for publishers.

~~~
cyphar
Copyright _was_ for authors a very long time ago[1]. It's been slowly
corrupted by the greed of publishers over a very long time, but it is
important to remember where copyright actually comes from and to reject
emotional arguments about the rights of publishers (in truth, they don't
deserve rights over creators' works -- they abuse creators enough as-is).

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne)

~~~
monocasa
Uhhhh....

> These restrictions were enforced by the Stationers' Company, a guild of
> printers given the exclusive power to print—and the responsibility to
> censor—literary works.

~~~
cyphar
If you read the full paragraph in context (and the following paragraph), it
says:

> _Prior to the statute 's enactment in 1710_, copying restrictions were
> authorized by the Licensing of the Press Act 1662. [Your quote about the
> Stationers' Company]. The censorship administered under the Licensing Act
> led to public protest; as the act had to be renewed at two-year intervals,
> authors and others sought to prevent its reauthorisation. _In 1694,
> Parliament refused to renew the Licensing Act_ , ending the Stationers'
> monopoly and press restrictions. Over the next 10 years the Stationers
> repeatedly advocated bills to re-authorize the old licensing system, but
> Parliament declined to enact them. _Faced with this failure, the Stationers
> decided to emphasise the benefits of licensing to authors rather than
> publishers, and the Stationers succeeded in getting Parliament to consider a
> new bill._

Which means that your quote is quite out-of-context. The Stationers' Company
lost their monopoly over printing rights due to public outcry, and they failed
to get a new law passed until they made a change to it that emphasised the
protection of authors. _That_ law was called the Statute of Anne.

Even earlier on, copyright "law" was used as a tool of censorship by the Queen
of England (who was Mary at the time). Effectively, a publisher would ask the
monarch for the exclusive right to publish a particular book, and a guild of
printers (the Stationers' Company) was formed later that then enforced their
own version of Copyright under these monopolies they were given.

The Statute of Anne was the first time copyright was actually a public law,
that anyone could enforce -- and it was the first time that something you
could call a "copyright system" was intended to protect _authors_.

------
arca_vorago
I wish people on hn wouldn't be so opposed to GPL and copy left licensing,
because the four freedoms as presented by RMS really saw this coming a long
time ago. The same principles apply to hardware.

I think its a salient point that the same companies opposed to or abusing copy
left are the same ones locking users out from hardware repairs.

~~~
jordigh
> RMS really saw this coming a long time ago

And one of the reasons for GPLv3: the anti-tivoisation clause. You should be
allowed to install modified software in your own devices.

People have misconstrued anti-tivoisation that to mean that Apple can't keep
malware out of your iPhone by key signatures, but that's not what it means,
nor was it the primary reason why Apple wanted to prevent their users from
installing unsigned software. It's about giving control to users and giving
them both the key and the lock and letting them decide what goes on their own
machines. Trying to paternalistically tell users what they can and cannot
install has culminated in a method of control for repairs and obsolescence.

~~~
abritinthebay
That isn't what it _means_ but the problem with it is that it has _extra knock
on effects_.

There is a reason GPL v2 was incredibly popular and GPLv3 basically killed all
momentum and it wasn't because GPLv3 _was better_. At least not from a
business point of view.

And that, at its core, is the issue. In a world where the only licence is
GPLv3... it works. But in a world where people can choose other licenses - it
won't be the choice of most.

It's a shame because I love the GPLv2 but I'll never use GPLv3 and honestly
it's just less hassle to chose MIT for most companies.

~~~
badsectoracula
You should stop looking things only from "a business point of view", often
what is best for business is bad for the users - even if they don't understand
it themselves to care enough about (at which point what the business is doing
is little different from taking advantage of their users' lack of knowledge
and should be shamed instead of used as an example for others to mimic).

~~~
abritinthebay
Thinking like yours gave us GPLv3 and less subsequent adoption of copyleft
licenses.

Which means you’ve got a lovely and ideologically pure hill to die on, but die
you will.

 _In the real world_ code is useless without being adopted. The largest
adopters? Businesses. They don’t want to use GPLv3? Less developers likely to
use it (market forces I’m afraid).

So no, I’ll keep paying attention to _what works_ and not be beholden to the
idealistic notions of the FSF, thanks.

~~~
flukus
What business stay away from GPL3 that were OK with GPL2? The only one I can
think of is apple and they're the type of free loaders that don't benefit the
wider OSS community anyway. Most companies are still using linux with gnu
tools so the version 3 hasn't affected them at all.

~~~
maccard
> is apple and they're the type of free loaders that don't benefit the wider
> OSS community anyway.

Forgetting about a little project called clang? Swift is open source, WebKit
is open source (with a tarnished history).

I’m not claiming Apple are perfect, but saying they’re free loaders who don’t
benefit is a flat out lie.

------
sixdimensional
So, I work in obsolescence trying to support systems that operate for upwards
of 20-30 years. It has been a real learning experience, as I have a much
longer product lifecycle to support, and yet, we burn through material for
repairs. There is very little actual board repair or similar, more pull out a
entire assembly, toss it and put it an entire new assembly. Wasteful, just
like Apple or similar saying to just throw out the entire device (or recycle
it).

I don't like it, but ultimately I can see our disposable consumer culture
really manifested through this situation. Most commercial-off-the-shelf
components are not made to last for time to market, material and cost reasons.
If they were, the pace of technological development might decrease and cost
would probably increase.

Sometimes I wonder if we have progressed "enough" technologically to step back
and use the power we have to build some long term support/sustainable
technology infrastructure. Yet I fear unless our hand is forced, we will
persist in the current trends of using a lot of energy and raw material to
produce something that doesn't last long enough, and then sell "recycling" as
the solution.

Can the recycling chain really make up for all the energy, and activity
consumed and pollution/byproducts produced throughout the process?

Sometimes I wonder if we spent more time on modular, upgradeable designs, long
term support components, etc. we might fair better. Easier said than done?
Sustainable engineering/manufacturing is a complex, emerging science.

Still, obsolescence is a many headed hydra, whether you do long term support
or planned obsolescence. I don't see any easy answers but I'm looking!

------
userbinator
Interesting article coming from the IEEE, who has historically been very pro-
DRM, anti-consumer.

 _Back in 2012, Toshiba told laptop repair tech Tim Hicks that he needed to
remove 300 PDFs of Toshiba’s official repair manuals from his website, where
he was offering the information for free. To avoid being sued, Hicks complied,
and now fewer people have the guidance they need to repair Toshiba laptops._

Of course, you can still find the manuals if you know where to look, and even
complete schematics --- no doubt leaked by those in the far East who actually
have access. There's always been an underground repair movement, sharing
manuals and other information and reverse-engineering as necessary[1][2]; but
that's getting rarer as things get more "secure", and the sites themselves
being DMCA'd or otherwise taken down. Perhaps LibGen/SciHub could start a
subsidiary specifically for hosting such leaked/"samizdat" repair information,
given how they seem to be staying alive despite copyright...

[1]
[https://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?p=446](https://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?p=446)

[2]
[https://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?p=1970](https://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?p=1970)

~~~
sohkamyung
> Interesting article coming from the IEEE, who has historically been very
> pro-DRM, anti-consumer.

The article was written by Kyle Wiens (from iFixit) and Gay Gordon-Byrne (from
Repair.org ). It might not represent the opinions of IEEE Spectrum (the
magazine which published the article).

Do you have a link or references to the 'pro DRM' or 'anti-consumer' stance of
the IEEE? As an IEEE Member, I would like to know about such things about the
organisation.

~~~
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC
Not specifically about DRM, but just their general attitude towards
transparency and implementability. Making standards non-public (as in, for
anyone to look at on the web for free) is a pretty anti-consumer thing to do,
as is creating standards that include patented technology. The usefulness of
standards for the consumer is interoperability. Both of those things actively
prevent interoperability.

~~~
sohkamyung
I see. Yes, making standards 'non-public' is an issue. In the past, I had to
pay to obtain some standards documents as reference materials for products
that I was working on.

It would be much nicer if the standards were freely available, like those
released by the IETF.

However, the IEEE isn't the only guilty one including patented technology in
their standards. I believe the MPEG-LA also does the same thing (the MP3 and
H.264 standards).

~~~
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC
No, it's shockingly common, actually ... but it's still shocking how an
organization of supposedly engineers obviously is incapable of recognizing and
addressing an obvious massive structural flaw in their supposed solution to
the problem of interoperability.

------
threatofrain
We must push for the right of _comprehensible ownership_ , not the right to
repair your electronics. We must stop the consumer trend of not really owning
things, but instead buying a license to use something.

Consumers don't keep track of every little law or right, and must rely on
intuition to guide their sense. Ignorance of the law is a most forgivable
excuse to forgetting you have some right or protection in the first place, and
a "license to use" breaks a lot of citizens understanding of their legal
relationship to the goods they acquired from the market, and the kind of
protections their society offers them.

Most citizens don't imagine that they cannot repair or break apart their Ikea
furniture. Of course I'm not saying that ordinary people want to break open
their phones or laptops, but they may want to take it to a repair shop.

~~~
npsimons
> Consumers don't keep track of every little law or right

This came up in a similar form in the discussion about IoT devices and
privacy. We hold doctors and civil engineers to standards to protect the
public, why shouldn't we do the same for software and hardware that could ruin
your life? If you don't think this is a problem, or businesses have a "right"
to pursue profits at all costs, you are a part of the problem and need to
kindly find another industry to harm.

~~~
threatofrain
> If you don't think this is a problem, or businesses have a "right" to pursue
> profits at all costs, you are a part of the problem and need to kindly find
> another industry to harm.

You might have a romantic model of the medical system, but I certainly don't
think that any business in any industry should be able to pursue profits
without any moral restraint.

------
reificator
My Surface Pro 4 no longer detects its own internal drive. Is the connection
loose? Do I need to replace the drive? I don't know because I can't open it up
easily.

This is weird for me because I've always been able to reliably do my own
repairs, even on my previous MacBook Pro. To now realize that my Surface is
worthless unless I'm still barely within the warranty period is unsettling.

~~~
bproven
Unfortunately, Macbooks and Macbook Pros are like this now too :(

Apple will say it is necessary to make it as thin and efficient as possible.
But that has a smell to it. My Dell XPS 15 9550 can be easily serviced : the
SDD, Memory, wifi card and battery are all accessible and it doesn't sacrifice
(much) thinness or weight to accomplish.

I sometimes wonder if the customer would be OK with Macbooks being 1mm thicker
with user replaceable parts. There is only so thin you can go... If Apple
wants claim to tell a sustainability story or to be "green" this planned
obsolescence stuff needs to go.

~~~
natch
While it is true that Apple laptops have been getting thinner, the rest of
your comment is severely out of step with reality.

MacBooks and MacBook Pros do have repair options. At least until they are
obsolete. And since Apple caps the price the consumer pays for parts at a set
per-model limit, the repairs can be surprisingly reasonable, especially if
several major repairs are done at once. We had a top cover with keyboard,
battery, motherboard, and MagSafe charging board all replaced with new ones
for a total of under $400, a low price that was then waived because we had
AppleCare.

As far as sustainability and being green, Apple takes computers for recycling
at its stores. Where I live they also have a dedicated electronics drop off
spot separate from the store, but then I am in Silicon Valley. They then have
centers which break down the computers into parts, eventually recovering
precious metals and reusable components and responsibly dealing with hazardous
waste. I have visited this place and seen it happening with my own eyes. Not
on some arranged fake tour, but from the back door, catching glimpses of what
was going on inside, while dropping stuff off. They are being acclaimed for
all this work they are doing. I'm not sure what other option you see, given
that we all demand power upgrades with every new system we buy.

There is also the hacking risk which everyone on your side of this discussion
loves to overlook. If it's easy to install bugging devices in a household
member's laptop, then it will happen all the time. Apple is a big target.
Instead of a hugely fragmented hardware ecosystem where makers of rogue, key
logging, components don't even know which model to target, Apple presents a
unified attack surface, and thus needs to be better defended. It really makes
no sense for them to make it easy for me to hack your laptop so that I can
destroy your privacy. It makes all the sense in the world for them to protect
their user's hardware from unauthorized tampering.

I hate that I can't repair my own device. But there are some good, valid user-
centric reasons for it, not just the profit-centric reason the outraged anti-
Apple crowd assumes.

~~~
glenneroo
I think you missed his main point:

> the SDD, Memory, wifi card and battery are all accessible

That means you don't need to bring it in to a certified repair center. I
looked up his laptop model, all one needs is a standard Philips-head and a M2
x 3mm Torx screwdriver (I have a Torx kit from eBay that I got for ~8 Euro).

p.s. Apple laptops used to be user-serviceable. In fact, I recently upgraded a
several older MacBooks with SSDs and only it took a couple minutes.

~~~
bproven
Yeah - that is sort of what prompted me to comment as well. I was able to do
the same thing to an old 2008 Macbook unibody. After replacing the HDD with an
SSD (easy to do and huge perf change) its a good box for everyday stuff.

------
kop316
To me what is frustrating is the planned obsolescence can just as easily be
accomplished by just abandoning software support. Many older phones will never
have new software because cendors cannot (or will not) allow electronics to
upgrade to a new kernel, functionally limiting it to an old one and limiting
what it can upgrade to. I would like to see some sort of law where if the
electronic is abondoned, the software can be relased to allow consumers to
update it.

~~~
scarface74
In the case of iOS, update it to what? By the time Apple drops iOS support for
a device, it's already starting to show its age. I have an old working 1st gen
iPod Touch that can only handle simple web pages like HN and most apps that
require a back end can't connect to the server like Netflix and YouTube.

My old 1st gen iPad fared a little better - you can still download "the last
compatible version" of apps and use many of the streaming apps but it's crash
prone trying to display complicated web pages.

Sooner or later smart phone advancement will get to the point where computers
are now - a 10 year old computer * can run most modern non game software but
we aren't there yet.

Neither of my old iOS devices needed "repairs". While I had long since
abandoned my iPod Touch, I just replaced my first gen iPad as a PDF/Ebook
reader with a 2017 iPad.

* My parents still use my 2006 era Core Duo 1.66 Mac Mini with Windows 7 and my current Plex Server is 2008 Dell Laptop 2.66Ghz Core 2 Duo running Windows 10.

~~~
exodust
_" By the time Apple drops iOS support for a device, it's already starting to
show its age"_

Not really. My iPad3 no longer gets updates, but has great battery life, and
runs common games and apps fine. It's fast enough for most web browsing, has
retina screen and no reason whatsoever to be abandoned.

iOS Safari is not a great browser, it could be improved to run better on a
device such as iPad3, but that doesn't suit Apple and their focus on native
apps.

Now that Apple has stopped all updates for this device, my only option is to
jailbreak and hope I can install an updated web browser. It's pathetic and
irresponsible that Apple abandons its own products, no security patches, no
nothing. They are like Facebook - they only care about "now" and "tomorrow".
If you're a customer from yesterday, you are worthless.

~~~
scarface74
_Not really. My iPad3 no longer gets updates, but has great battery life, and
runs common games and apps fine. It 's fast enough for most web browsing, has
retina screen and no reason whatsoever to be abandoned._

How has it been _abandoned_? My 1st gen iPad is still supported by iTunes (the
computer app), all of Apple services (App Store, iCloud, iBooks, etc.) and
starting in 2013, you've been able to download the last compatible version.

 _iOS Safari is not a great browser, it could be improved to run better on a
device such as iPad3,_

How? Which browser could handle today's web pages with 256MB (my iPad) or
512Mb RAM (the third gen iPad) and no virtual memory _.

_ It's pathetic and irresponsible that Apple abandons its own products, no
security patches, no nothing.*

The iPad 3 was introduced in 2012 and received its last update August of 2016.
How many apps that you use every day have become unusable? If my iPad 1 can
still run Netflix, Hulu, Crackle, Spotify, all of Apple's productivity apps,
etc. I'm assuming a 3rd generation iPad running iOS 9.3.5 would be more
usable.

 _They are like Facebook - they only care about "now" and "tomorrow". If
you're a customer from yesterday, you are worthless._

Apple has the best history of OS support in the industry. iOS 11 supports the
iPhone 5S released in 2013. All of Apples services still support your iPad.
What can't you do on your iPad that you want to do?

~~~
exodust
Your argument in defence of Apple's strategy is an odd line to take.

The point you've missed is that when Apple stops releasing OS updates, all the
built-in apps and programs also suffer the same fate, such as Safari web
browser.

Some websites are starting to use ES6 javascript in some circumstances.
Certain ES6 methods are not supported in browsers older than 2017. Valve's
Steam website is one example, the preview videos and slideshow on each game
page do not load because the highlight player now uses ES6 javascript. Newer
iPads see the player, "older" iPads do not.

There is absolutely no reason why this needs to be the case.

Browser updates and patches for some built-in programs should be offered even
when the OS is no longer updated.

~~~
scarface74
_The point you 've missed is that when Apple stops releasing OS updates, all
the built-in apps and programs also suffer the same fate, such as Safari web
browser._

You are saying Apple's programs --- which programs besides Safari need to be
updated to support "modern" standards?

The mail client on my first gen iPad can still connect to any mail server -
including Exchange servers. The same for the calendar app.

You can still download the last compatible version of apps from the App Store
and download any music, movie, or book from the iTunes, iBook store.

The Podcast app that was a separate download for iOS 5, still syncs playlists
as well (badly) as the newest version of iOS.

The iOS Maps app that originally used Google Map data still works. The Maps
app still works with my first gen iPod Touch and has more updated satellite
data than my brand new iPad using Apple Maps.

Apple even hacked in a way to support two factor authentication in older iOS
devices that wouldn't show a separate field for the authentication code - you
enter your password+authentication code.

All of their productivity apps like Pages, Numbers, and Keynotes still work,
you can still save documents and open them with the newest version on the
newest Macs via iCloud.

You can still Airplay from a 1st gen iPad to a brand new Apple TV.

As far as Safari, if it crashes on complicated sites now and is unusable with
iPads with low memory now, don't you think it would be more crash prone trying
to render more complicated sites?

I'm using the worse case scenario - having the first generation iPad with the
least memory (256Mb of RAM).

I've used my 2017 iPad next to my 2010 iPad. The only real difference in
Apple's built in apps as far as usability is that Web pages render a lot
faster, Safari doesn't crash and you can keep multiple tabs open without
constant reloading -- all due to hardware improvements -- not "patching" the
browser.

~~~
exodust
scarface, you're defending the indefensible. Stop trying to justify Apple's
scheduled technology obsolescence.

I'm not talking iPad 1st gen, which was always slow. Soon after release it was
clear that iPad first gen was underpowered.

I'm talking about iPad 3rd gen, which has 1 GB RAM, a retina display, and does
not crash when loading web pages. It has enough RAM to load any web page.
"Hardware improvements" are not needed on this device. Software improvements
ARE needed including updating the browser to cater for things like ES6 which
does NOT require better hardware, only a minor updated browser software.

You don't think Apple should update the software, and instead I should... go
to the store and buy a new iPad to get a slightly better web browser? You are
part of the "throw away" culture problem, you are not helping.

Let's take a look at Apple's glossy "helping the planet" page...

[https://www.apple.com/environment/](https://www.apple.com/environment/)

"To ask less of the planet we ask more of ourselves."

Nothing about extending product life, it's all fluffy feel-good futuristic
gazing pre-packaged catch phrases. Well I'm asking more of Apple too, like
software updates for an iPad3. Asking more of ourselves is not enough, we also
need to act on those questions, not just copy and paste the slogans on a
"helping the planet" page.

------
feelin_googley
"Bowing to public pressure, Apple apologized and fixed the broken phones with
a new [software] update. But a precedent had been set. Previously, Apple had
made it difficult for people to fix its products by restricting access to
parts and service information."

"When you buy such a machine, the hardware becomes yours. But if you ask
manufacturers, theyll say that the software inside still belongs to them."

Apple's strategy has been to make repair difficult by restricting information
and access to parts.

They can send C&D letters to anyone who publishes information about repair.

But what about users, who are not publishing information about repair?

Apple cannot send C&D letters to users, who are free to use the hardware
however they wish.

Apple may have IP covering manufacture and modifications to the hardware, they
may have IP covering information about the hardware, but they have no IP on
the _use_ of the hardware that they could assert against users.

However because users rely on Apple-controlled software, Apple could
manipulate the use of the device via automatic software updates. And that is
exactly what they did.

The solution for the user is to select hardware that allows users to install
their own choice of open source software instead of giving away control over
the hardware to a corporation via corporate-controlled software and "automatic
updates".

~~~
kwiens
Well that's the point of iFixit — we have hundreds of thousands of people
around the world writing their own repair info to fill the void that the
manufacturers left. It's working out pretty well so far.

------
sumitgt
The pressure from consumers is in the favor of slimmer, sleeker gadgets. This
causes manufacturers to use production techniques that make repairing
impossible.

So even if companies made every little detail about the internals of the
product public, it's gonna be of not much use to repair today's cellphones
that are held together essentially by glue.

I understand what the EFF is trying to say, but frankly, consumers have chosen
with their wallets on this one.

~~~
tzmudzin
> The pressure from consumers is in the favor of slimmer, sleeker gadgets.
> This causes manufacturers to use production techniques that make repairing
> impossible.

How does that apply to the John Deere tractors or your next car?

~~~
coldtea
It doesn't. People don't crave from slimmer, slicker tractors to the point
that you can't have repairable components in them.

~~~
coldtea
"for slimmer"

------
sliken
Seems laughably unlikely.

Would be nice is somebody like the EU at least required a user replacable
battery. Seems insane to replace a top spec phone made out of aluminum and
glass just because a battery has died.

Imagine if cars (starting at only 10-12 times as expensive) were thrown away
when they needed an oil change. They would last just about as long as phones
do.

~~~
rayiner
If you want to buy a phone with a replaceable battery, then do that. Why force
everyone to put up with the extra bulk and weight? And at least with apple,
replacing the battery does not require replacing the phone.

~~~
andrepd
The "bulk and weight" FUD needs to stop. There is no reason that user
replaceable batteries need to be heavier and bulkier than soldered batteries.

~~~
userbinator
Perfect example:

[http://www.gizchina.com/2013/09/18/exclusive-hands-video-
sta...](http://www.gizchina.com/2013/09/18/exclusive-hands-video-stainless-
steel-jiayu-g5/)

[http://www.gizchina.com/2013/09/24/jiayu-g5-teardown/](http://www.gizchina.com/2013/09/24/jiayu-g5-teardown/)

Almost identical in dimensions and appearance to an iPhone 5, yet has
expandable storage and a 50% more capacity removable battery. If some small
Chinese company can make such a phone, so could Apple, but they deliberately
chose not to.

~~~
coldtea
How many g5 batteries exploded on their owners with third party batteries,
most of which are crappy?

It's easy to make anything if you have lax enough standards.

~~~
cyphar
How many Samsung devices exploded on their owners with first-party batteries?
This is a ridiculous argument -- what aspect of a "non crappy" battery will
result in a replaceable version being more bulky?

~~~
coldtea
Obviously the part where non-replaceable batteries are also more expensive
designs created to balance maximizing energy while minimizing heat dissipation
for a specific model, and studied by the company's own expert teams to
specifically fit in the phone they're added in.

Random third party from lowest price manufacturers are usually not.

In fact, as you've shown, even first-party batteries can be dangerous if
rushed -- like in the Samsung case you noted.

------
gt_
I have been living in rural Kentucky for 4 months and casually asking farmers
about the issues with John Deere tractors. They are all familiar with the
problem but the ones I have spoken to seem to think it is necessary. I think
these are smaller scale farmers, though. The heavy machinery mechanic next
door disagrees, and says the company he works for buys a certification for the
right to repair. I got the impression they somewhat depend on it. At least, he
doesn't seem to put up a fuss. He is a neighbor so I didn't put him on the
spot.

~~~
forapurpose
> the ones I have spoken to seem to think it is necessary

Why do they think it is necessary?

~~~
gt_
2 of the 3 here said they own equipment that only John Deere can work on and
they do not like it. Their impression appears to be that “nowadays” the
tractors have computers in them, which necessitates a technician with skills
beyond that of a country mechanic. I get the sense they either have bigger
problems or that they just feel helpless so would rather not know. In the case
of the latter, they are probably right but I don’t think I have the heart to
tell them. Similar to the neighbor, I see these guys at the local cafe
somewhat regularly. I am very much a city folk haha, just visiting.

------
DoubleGlazing
I know a few people who bought Smart TVs from various manufacturers a few
years ago and the Smart functions have one by one been withdrawn as the
manufacturers no longer supports them. E.G. YouTube, Netflix and other media
player apps. Eventually you are left with a TV with a pretty basic, slow and
probably insecure web browser. We got nearly 30 years out of Teletext,
nowadays expecting a Smart TV app to be supported for five years is being
optimistic.

And will the manufactures open up their TV OSes to allow 3rd parties to offer
support. Of course not, but they will helpfully let you know how great their
new TVs are.

~~~
acuozzo
> I know a few people who bought Smart TVs from various manufacturers a few
> years ago and the Smart functions have one by one been withdrawn as the
> manufacturers no longer supports them.

This is the #1 reason I restricted myself to purchasing a Smart TV which uses
Android TV rather than something written by the OEM.

------
Entangled
I wish I could install whatever I want on my phone without jailbreaking it.
Let us have an option hidden in the settings (just like developer options) so
we can install anything we want without permission or without the app expiring
in a few days.

It's my damn phone!

~~~
scarface74
You can install any piece of code you want on your phone. If it's open source,
you can download XCode, compile from source and put it on your own device
without paying for a developer's license.

I'm not going to install some random piece of closed source software that
couldn't make it through Apple's review process. No I'm not treating my phone
differently than my computer. I have no random software on my computer from
untrusted sources. I even bought my last Dell from the Microsoft store so I
wouldn't have random crapware on it.

~~~
michaelmrose
You can install anything you want supposing the developer releases it in the
wild as source with no hope of making money off AND no hope of normal users
making use of it.

Doesn't sound useful to me.

~~~
scarface74
How much money do you really think a developer can make without going through
the App Store?

Can you name one successful profitable Android app that isn't sold in the
Google Play Store even though Android devices have been able to sideload for
years?

~~~
flukus
> How much money do you really think a developer can make without going
> through the App Store?

A lot. Your mistake here is in thinking that all software is direct to
consumer. Being able to install software without going through a store is very
important for a lot of small to medium business that have custom or customized
software. You can do it with android, you could do it with windows mobile in
the 90's, it's mostly just apple that want to exert so much control over you.

~~~
scarface74
It's been available for years....

[https://developer.apple.com/library/content/documentation/ID...](https://developer.apple.com/library/content/documentation/IDEs/Conceptual/AppDistributionGuide/DistributingEnterpriseProgramApps/DistributingEnterpriseProgramApps.html)

------
penglish1
Thanks IEEE. While we're at it, we'd also like it if you opened your standards
process, and included the general public and especially security researchers
in all your drafts.

~~~
kwiens
Fair point! I wrote this long before the KRACK vuln but I've been very
uncomfortable with the closed nature of IEEE standards that I've participated
in. But I've still contributed, so I reckon I'm still complicit.

For what it's worth, that's why we published essentially the entire oManual
spec for free online so you can build compatible products to IEEE 1874 without
having to purchase the standard.
[http://www.omanual.org/](http://www.omanual.org/)

------
awakeasleep
It's a shame that none of the policy suggestions for something like this would
leave Apple's Activation Lock unscathed.

Activation lock caused something like a sustained 50% drop in phone thefts the
year it was implemented. Before that, stealing phones was starting to look
like stealing shoes in the 90's. It even had its own slang, "apple picking".

~~~
andrepd
>Activation lock caused something like a sustained 50% drop in phone thefts
the year it was implemented

I'm _extremely_ skeptical about that. Can you post sources?

And why do you say that these proposals are not compatible with Activation
Lock-style schemes?

~~~
wvenable
[http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-smartphone-
killswitch/s...](http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-smartphone-
killswitch/smartphone-theft-drops-in-london-two-u-s-cities-as-anti-theft-kill-
switches-installed-idUKKBN0LF09320150211)

~~~
shakna
> Thefts involving smartphones have declined dramatically in three major
> cities since manufacturers began implementing “kill switches” that allow the
> phones to be turned off remotely if they are stolen, authorities said on
> Tuesday.

> Johnson, San Francisco District Attorney George Gascon and New York state
> Attorney General Eric Schneiderman were among numerous officials arguing for
> new laws mandating the kill switches.

So phone theft decreased in cities considering mandating remote kill switches.

That seems less Activation Lock, and more:

> So far, Apple, Samsung and Google have implemented kill switches on their
> smartphones, and Microsoft is expected to release an operating system for
> its Windows phones that has one this year

... the fact that everyone is bringing such a technology to market at similar
timelines.

\---

As for the claimed 50% drop:

> The number of stolen iPhones dropped by 40 percent in San Francisco and 25
> percent in New York in the 12 months after Apple Inc added a kill switch to
> its devices in September 2013. In London, smartphone theft dropped by half,
> according to an announcement by officials in the three cities.

That's an average below 40%, but those aren't stats. They're rounded figures.
And only in three cities, over the whole world.

------
bluetwo
If you want to influence lawmakers, you have to bring their attention to the
issue when they are running for office.

MAKE IT A CAMPAIGN ISSUE!

------
pasta
I have mixed feelings about this.

Somehow people think they have the right to buy the brand they like. But this
is not how the market works. You can always choose not to buy it.

Don't like how Apple solders everything to the main board and glues the screen
glass to the body? Just don't buy Apple.

But this can be a difficult decision because of things like 'status', vendor
lock in, greed, and what not.

The feeling that you can't live without Apple, Facebook, Android, Instagram,
and so on, is a strange thing. And it's one of the things I don't like about
todays society.

------
acidtrucks
I would love to see a company whose business model is making generic and
standard consumer electronics parts that are small and powerful, with options
to boot. I would love it if I could build & maintain my own mobile computer
(AKA smartphone) just as I would build my own PC. Since taking my kindle
voyage apart, I realize that this must be very doable. That thing is way less
sophisticated than a raspberry pi, it just happens to be a form factor that I
like to hold.

~~~
jpindar
1\. small

2\. powerful

3\. with options

4\. easy to work on without special (possibly custom) equipment

choose two

~~~
acidtrucks
I would rather have a larger handheld device than my Nexus 5x if it meant I
control the hardware and software on it. 2/3/4 I think can be worked out by
the consumer market as long as standards can be crafted for modularity.

------
sandov
Why not better educate people about the fact that some devices are easier to
repair than others?. If they care about it, they will naturally buy stuff
that's repair-friendly, even if it's a niche market.

I care about repairing my stuff, and avoid buying anything that is
intentionally designed to being unrepairable. I've specifically not bought any
Apple product because of that.

~~~
acuozzo
> Why not better educate people about the fact that some devices are easier to
> repair than others?

People are far more likely to care more about devices that are easy to use
than ones that are easy to repair.

My father, for instance, just barely has sufficient skill to make use of his
iPhone, but it has considerably improved his life. I don't imagine anyone
could convince or train him to use something different solely on the basis of
it being easy to repair.

He's going to have to pay someone to repair it for him anyway, so what does it
matter if it's Apple or someone else? I imagine he'd happily exchange it for
whatever the latest model is if a technician were to imply that an upgrade
would fix his hypothetical problem.

One important consideration here is that smartphones are of use to a market
which includes people willfully resistant to relearning.

------
MrQuincle
There are so many rights we have to fight for first (saying from a company
that builds open source hardware products).

\+ The right to have your data not being used in ways you wouldn't give
permission for.

\+ The right to have your data and devices properly protected against
malignant actors

\+ The right to be able to use your devices as you want, resell them, use them
years after you bought them

\+ The right to expect standards to apply. If you are relying on 110V, it
should not be 180V.

By the way, just standardization for power plugs/outlets would already save
more money and resources than you can probably imagine. Especially if we
enforce same grid voltage and freq everywhere in the world. Electrical
engineering is too important to leave to individual nation states.

There are other non-rights, like usability, look and feel, and prestige that
are much more important to everybody than anything w.r.t. fiddling around with
your stuff.

------
IndrekR
What about the right to repair our software?

Running a electronics engineering house here and we can easily see 9:1 ratio
of software:hardware people-time ratio in bringing a device to the market.
Varies heavily from project to project, but solutions in SW tend to scale
better.

------
mk89
Is it so hard for a company nowadays to produce average phones in a
sustainable way and that are consumer-oriented?

I think this is what’s missing: a player that simply reads about frustrated
users and creates product for them. I am quite sure it won’t be as successful
as Apple but not as bad as the last failed company.

I read recently that material costs for a Samsung phone increased of 10% in 5
years. Now, why can’t a phone be sold for 400 usd _and_ be respectful for
consumers? I get it that companies live out ot money, but i can’t believe that
there is not a single company doing differently!

~~~
chii
The problem is that such measures aren't important to the 'average' user,
which means your market for such libre phones aren't going to recover the
capital costs needed to invest to start-up the operation!

~~~
mk89
It would be interesting to have numbers here, because I think that people are
becoming more and more aware and tired of buying a 3-400 euro phone every 2
years. What are the improvements these new phones carry along? I have a
relatively old phone, but the only features I see with newer phones are the
following:

\- better hardware, like more cpu, more ram, better camera \- support for
fingerprints \- android updates

There is actually an alternative, I wasn't aware of it:
[https://fairphone.com/en/](https://fairphone.com/en/)

But hell, no, 2017 and they still offer Android 6.0! And it seems that they
are more related to "fairness" in production, etc. It's the "eco" phone which
is probably sponsored by green parties :) That's not actually what I meant in
the parent comment, where I was asking for a company that produces simply
"average" consumer-oriented phones. If these guys do it, why can't another
company do the same?

------
MR4D
I’m curious: when everything electronic is printed in a level 4 clean room and
printed together at nanoscale, will this even be relevant?

For instance, computers went from chips on boards (think Apple II) to
basically just chips (any cellphone).

What happens when thins are even further integrated? Will this even matter?

I honestly don’t know the answer. Maybe we all just hack chips with our local
x-ray fab down the block.

The future is getting weirder.

------
arpgy
The way the situation is evolving is that they are NOT 'our' electronics. We
think we are buying them to own them, but in reality what it gets you is the
right to use the device only for as long manufacturer wants, and only in a
manner deemed appropriate by the manufacturer. It's more than a fight about
tinkering or repairing, it's a fight about ownership.

------
WaxProlix
Can someone from the American Libertarian cadre on HN chime in on this? I see
some examples of people talking about how this might be 'necessary' (see gt_'s
comment(s)) but I'm interested in an ideological assessment of this situation.

~~~
KGIII
There are many, many varied beliefs in Libertarianism - even within America
and within the Libertarian Party. On the political compass, it is opposite
authoritarianism. Taken to extremes, it is anarchy. It can have left or right
components. It's quite a spectrum.

That said, the commons must be protected. The right to repair would qualify as
the commons. At the same time, forcing companies to excessive standards isn't
always the best answer. In a perfect world, we'd have perfect information and
rational buyers. We don't have that.

As the other poster suggested, getting rid of the DMCA would be a good start.
I'd say companies should not be allowed to actively prevent repair or
modification, but doing so renders the warranty invalid.

I'm pretty far over in the left side. I'm probably best defined as a
libertarian socialist, not too far from the social democrats of Europe.

~~~
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC
> I'd say companies should not be allowed to actively prevent repair or
> modification, but doing so renders the warranty invalid.

I absolutely don't agree. Why should the fact that I use your product in ways
that you didn't explicitly allow mean that you are not responsible for defects
in your product? A really important aspect of ownership is that I can actually
do with what I own whatever I want to do, and not just in the sense that it is
legal to do so, but in the sense that it causes no disadvantage for me. Just
because I install an additional wall socket in my house, does not mean that
you can disclaim responsibility for all defects in the house that I paid you
to build, and the same should apply to IT devices. You are obviously not
responsible for any defects that I cause by modifying your product, but that's
it, you should still be fully responsible for the quality of your product.

~~~
KGIII
Too difficult to judge once it has been tampered with. The courts don't have
time to judge each case on its merits and there's no reasonable surety that
your modification didn't harm the product.

The line has to be drawn somewhere.

~~~
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC
Who defines what counts as "tampering"? I didn't tamper with anything, I
simply used the product the way I wanted to use it. I don't see how it's even
remotely reasonable to allow the manufacturer to set rules as to how you may
use the product, and if you don't follow those rules they disclaim all
responsibility for delivering a non-defective product by claiming that it's
"tampering".

And how is the potential problem that some things are difficult to judge for a
court a reason to therefore allow one party to dictate the judgement? And why
would that party be the manufacturer? Why don't I as the customer get to
dictate the outcome?

Is there any reasonable surety that the manufacturer did do their quality
control properly?

How could it possibly be reasonable to assume that I am at fault because the
manufacturer says so?

How is it possibly a reasonable solution to the supposed problem that courts
lack resources to simply declare one party the winner by law?

And no, the line does not have to be drawn anywhere, why would it?

If I am willing and able to prove to any sufficiently competent person in the
matter that a defect existed when the product was delivered ... what could
possibly be a reason to "draw the line" somewhere and ignore the evidence? How
is it not obvious that at the very least, if I can demonstrate that a defect
existed when the product was delivered, it should be completely irrelevant
whether I also modified the product?

~~~
KGIII
We aren't going to fill the courts with that. If there's a manufacturing
defect, return it before tampering with it. If it is a common defect, it will
be covered by a recall and not a warranty.

Sorry, the line has to be drawn somewhere. You may be competent and I believe
you are. However, Joe I Can Solder This With A Lighter is not qualified. We
aren't going to tie up the courts determining the difference between you and
him.

It's just reality. In principle, I would love to agree with you. However, much
like we can't assume perfect information, we're not going to assume perfect
repairs. The courts are too valuable to be wasted with frivolity.

~~~
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC
> We aren't going to fill the courts with that.

Why not?

> If there's a manufacturing defect, return it before tampering with it.

What if I discover the defect only after I have started using it? (Please stop
calling using my property "tampering", or explain what you mean by "tampering"
if that is not what you mean.)

> Sorry, the line has to be drawn somewhere.

Why? Just repeating this claims does nothing to justify it.

> You may be competent and I believe you are. However, Joe I Can Solder This
> With A Lighter is not qualified. We aren't going to tie up the courts
> determining the difference between you and him.

So, what are we going to do instead then? Let the manufacturer decide what
they want to pay for?

> However, much like we can't assume perfect information, we're not going to
> assume perfect repairs.

Who is "assuming perfect repairs"?

> The courts are too valuable to be wasted with frivolity.

How is holding manufacturers responsible for defects in their products
frivolity?

~~~
KGIII
> Why not?

From your post above...

> whatever I want to do

I think we are done here. That's not how society works. You don't just get to
do whatever you want to do and expect the manufacturer to still cover the
warranty. They warranty it for an express set of conditions, for express
purposes, as is understood by a reasonable person (a legal concept). If you
tamper, see a dictionary, with the device then it is not their responsibility
to cover it. That's actually pretty much how the law already is. Your house
example is kinda silly. It's a house, not an electronic device.

I'd love to agree with you but reality suggests otherwise. If you overclock
your CPU, as a rough example, they aren't gonna let you RMA it. I don't blame
them. Swapping out user serviceable parts, as a reasonable person might do, is
an obvious exception. You might want to try looking at it as a reasonable
person (the legal concept) would.

You really seem to have a bit emotionally invested in this so I'm going to
respectfully bow out now.

~~~
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC
> I think we are done here. That's not how society works. You don't just get
> to do whatever you want to do and expect the manufacturer to still cover the
> warranty.

Well, yes, actually, I do. And not only do I expect it, it's actually the law
over here.

> If you tamper, see a dictionary, with the device then it is not their
> responsibility to cover it.

Well, OK, let me quote a dictionary:

| a :to interfere so as to weaken or change for the worse —used with with

| b :to try foolish or dangerous experiments —used with with

| c :to render something harmful or dangerous by altering its structure or
composition

([https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tamper](https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/tamper))

So, according to the dictionary definition, competently repairing or modifying
the phone certainly would not fall under tampering, do you agree?

> That's actually pretty much how the law already is.

Actually, I doubt that it is, assuming that you are talking about the US.

> Your house example is kinda silly. It's a house, not an electronic device.

I agree that a house is not an electronic device. Why do you think that
different rules should apply in the case of electronic devices?

> I'd love to agree with you but reality suggests otherwise.

Why?

> If you overclock your CPU, as a rough example, they aren't gonna let you RMA
> it.

Whether they "let me" anything really is not the question. The question is
what their legal responsibilities are, i.e., what I can enforce via the
judicial system if they do not voluntarily "let me".

> I don't blame them.

I think I got your standpoint. What's still missing is the justification.

> Swapping out user serviceable parts, as a reasonable person might do, is an
> obvious exception. You might want to try looking at it as a reasonable
> person (the legal concept) would.

You do understand that that is not a meaningful use of the legal term
"reasonable person", right? That is about figuring out the intent of a
contract if things are not spelled out.

> You really seem to have a bit emotionally invested in this so I'm going to
> respectfully bow out now.

Unfortunately, that is not really a justification for your standpoint either.

~~~
KGIII
See, now you're just being dishonest. I'm not even sure why?

I really, really shouldn't engage you further, but I'll try one more time.

No, the law isn't that 'over there.' The law isn't that anywhere. Nowhere on
the planet can you modify your electronic devices 'however you want' and have
it covered by warranty. To give a really simplistic example, you can not just
start swapping out resistors and replacing them with alternatives and be
covered under any legal system on the planet. Go ahead, run 440 volts into
your phone and tell 'em you expect it to be covered by warranty. I'll wait for
your court case. Provide documentation.

Yes, tampering. I'm now even more certain of my use of the word. The very
first definition works just wonderfully. Yes, when you crack open that phone
case and think you're a master at reflow with your toaster oven, you're making
it worse.

I'm really, really trying to be charitable. At this point, you've been openly
dishonest and made outlandish claims. No, no your legal system doesn't allow
that. Go ahead, snap a few resistors off, pump 12v AC into your phone, and try
for a warranty claim. I'll wait.

Seriously, that's not even a moral arguement to be made. You can't just do
'whatever you want' and expect warranty coverage - anywhere on the planet. Not
in my country, not in your country. If you think you can do it in your
country, consult a qualified legal professional.

Whatever you want includes things like smashing it open with a hammer and
hooking it up to your car's alternator in a crazed PCP frenzy. That ain't
legal anywhere.

~~~
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC
> No, the law isn't that 'over there.' The law isn't that anywhere. Nowhere on
> the planet can you modify your electronic devices 'however you want' and
> have it covered by warranty.

Well, great that you believe that ... but that does not really change the
reality of it.

> To give a really simplistic example, you can not just start swapping out
> resistors and replacing them with alternatives and be covered under any
> legal system on the planet.

Well ... except, yes, you can.

> Go ahead, run 440 volts into your phone and tell 'em you expect it to be
> covered by warranty. I'll wait for your court case. Provide documentation.

Why the heck would I want to do that? Why would I possibly want to apply 440
volts to my phone, in the process most likely damaging it irreparably, before
requesting repair of a pre-existing defect under warranty, the repair of which
is extremely unlikely to make the phone work again?! I mean, apart from the
fact that applying 440 volts to a phone PCB would probably make it impossible
to prove that the claimed defect existed beforehand, at least if it's a defect
in the electronics. And even in the first six months, when the seller has to
prove that the defect wasn't there on delivery to escape liability, the damage
from that most likely would be sufficient to shift the burden of proof to me.

But, well, yes, legally I could sort-of enforce that here, if I somehow did
manage to prove that the defect existed on delivery. Though chances are it
would be completely futile because the court would probably find that the
actual damage that I suffered in that situation is non-existent (because the
phone is worthless whether they do/pay for the repair or not), so while I
would formally win the case, I wouldn't really get anything out of it.

> Yes, tampering. I'm now even more certain of my use of the word. The very
> first definition works just wonderfully. Yes, when you crack open that phone
> case and think you're a master at reflow with your toaster oven, you're
> making it worse.

Speaking of dishonesty: How is it honest to pick a scenario that you consider
to be an incompetent repair or modification as an example of a competent
repair or modification?

> I'm really, really trying to be charitable. At this point, you've been
> openly dishonest and made outlandish claims. No, no your legal system
> doesn't allow that. Go ahead, snap a few resistors off, pump 12v AC into
> your phone, and try for a warranty claim. I'll wait.

Well see above. But to maybe show a case where that would work out just fine:
Let's say I do all that to my new phone, and then I discover that the SIM
socket is missing. Then I absolutely could successfully sue for receiving the
missing SIM socket. Probably not for getting it soldered in, though, unless I
could show that that actually increases the value of the phone.

But why are you constantly going for such intentionally massively destructive
scenarios?! Obviously, that's likely to make any claims on pre-existing
defects moot, if the destructive action would have destroyed the previously
defective component anyway, so there is no legal damage anymore.

> Whatever you want includes things like smashing it open with a hammer and
> hooking it up to your car's alternator in a crazed PCP frenzy. That ain't
> legal anywhere.

Well, yes, it actually is, that is what the concept of "property" means. As
long as it's not harming you, you don't get any say in what I do with my
property, and that includes if you are the manufacturer of what is now my
property. And not getting any say in it includes that you cannot disclaim
responsibility to deliver a non-defective product unless I do with my property
what you want me to do with my property.

------
npsimons
I'm happy that IEEE is recognizing this, but there's a reason I'm no longer a
member: IEEE supports software patents. Might want to remove that beam from
their own eye first . . .

------
zbentley
The article and some other comments here honestly just made me nostalgic for
the first Apple computer I owned, an early generation "unibody" cast aluminum
MacBook Pro.

It was, bar none, the easiest modern laptop to open up and service I've ever
worked on, and I did that professionally for several years. Simple screws,
minimal variation in screw size, solid steel parts, no silly plastic tabs, and
nothing that felt like "this didn't _need_ to be taped in, but using
tape/glue/whatever sure makes it easy for official warranty support people to
tell if you've been tinkering around in there."

Replacing entire logic boards, or doing even trickier work like re-cementing
CPU heatsinks, was incredibly easy and intuitive even without a manual (which
was fortunate, since the official maintenance/manual documentation was pretty
expensive to get access to legally).

Apple gets a lot of crap for the declining serviceability of their laptops,
but remember that it wasn't always this way. Things have gotten way worse, and
for pretty transparently dumb reasons.

The "tamper-proof" screws were the stick that broke the camel's back for me; I
was willing to give Apple the benefit of the doubt regarding hyper-restrictive
hardware compatibility checks and proprietary connectors, but when they made
the physical tooling itself pointlessly expensive/difficult to get (torx was
already a widespread standard; why give pentalobe, already a bastard
stepchild, more market share?), I started being a lot more suspicious. Where
were the people surreptitiously opening up laptops and stealing RAM? Or
installing hardware keyloggers? Instead, "tamperer" turned out to be basically
the same as "hobbyist", "non-blessed repairman", or "curious kid who wants to
know what the inside of their computer looks like".

And the party line I've heard from colleagues who work for Apple is inane: "it
damages the reliability of the brand to let anyone poke around inside; they
can break stuff!" Any hobbyist, aspiring geek, or unsanctioned technician
knows what they're getting into. Anyone in those groups, or anyone handing
their computer over to such a person, isn't going to blame Apple when
tinkering/inspection causes issues (if they do, they'll be laughed at by
anyone who hears them). Either it was broken and the maintenance/tinkering
fixed it, it wasn't broken and it was after being opened up, or it was broken
and remained that way.

Sigh. End rant. I miss the good old days, I guess. Snow Leopard and hardware
that was elegant, simple, and easy to fix _and_ use.

I'll go back to working on my lawn now, so I can tell kids to get off of it.
Monsanto considers it an illegal modification and TOS violation to water the
MiracleGrass I planted, so now it's all dead and I have to seed it again.

