
A “right to repair” movement tools up - edward
https://www.economist.com/news/business/21729744-tractors-smartphones-mending-things-getting-ever-harder-right-repair-movement
======
stefco_
I hope at some point we'll start including recycling/disassembly and
replacement externalities into price somehow. I don't know how you would do
that in a fair way, but it is frustrating that there aren't a ton of
corrective market forces to encourage manufacturers to make highly reusable,
repairable, recyclable devices.

All of this electronics churn is environmentally terrible, and it's
frustrating that, as with carbon energy products, the entire world is forced
to pay for the environmental externalities rather than the actual tech users.

You can make an accelerationist argument about not discouraging tech
development and dealing with the problems using more efficient tech in the
future, I guess. But I'd honestly rather have electronics cost a bit more and
know that manufacturers had a financial interest in maintaining rather than
replacing.

~~~
benevol
The main issue is this: We need to _reduce consumption_ overall!

 _It is well known that Americans consume far more natural resources and live
much less sustainably than people from any other large country of the world.
“A child born in the United States will create thirteen times as much
ecological damage over the course of his or her lifetime than a child born in
Brazil,” reports the Sierra Club’s Dave Tilford, adding that the average
American will drain as many resources as 35 natives of India and consume 53
times more goods and services than someone from China._

Source: [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/american-
consumpt...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/american-consumption-
habits/)

~~~
wiz21c
In Europe, any thing one buys must be guaranteed by the supplier for 2 years.
If one could just push that up to, say, 4 years, it'd nice....

~~~
KozmoNau7
Warranty for 6 months, right to complain for 18 months after that.

The difference is the burden of proof. For the initial 6 months, the
manufacturer/store has to prove the item was not somehow defective from the
beginning, due to manufacturing errors or similar mishaps, even if it broke 5
months and 29 days after the sale.

In the following 18 months, the burden of proof shifts to the buyer, to prove
that the fault did not happen to due mistreatment during (ab)use of the item.

That's how it is in Denmark, at least.

~~~
pc86
Doesn't that make sense, though? If you have a physical product that you use
daily, I don't think it's entirely unreasonable to ask how a failure after
700+ uses (or many, many more) can be confirmed as a manufacturing issue and
not use [over|mis|ab]use.

~~~
Filligree
How can a user prove they didn't misuse an item, though?

~~~
pc86
That would depend on the specific item, I'm sure. For example you can tell if
a phone has ever been wet because there will be signs on the interior. No
situation will be perfect but at some point the burden of proof has to shift
from the company to the user. I think six months is probably a bit soon but
sometime between that and two years seems reasonable to me.

~~~
efreak
Six months, not two years. I personally tend to ignore warranty periods of
under a year anyways, since products with such short warranty periods (30-90
days is common here in the US) tend to be cheaper to replace than to get
warranty service on anyways.

On the other hand, warranty here in the US can be annoying to deal with
anyways--I've failed twice at getting replacements for Samsung flash memory
cards that have been in production for less than their warranty period. There
a some problems (microsd becoming read-only) that _can 't_ be caused by user
misuse. That might be more reflective of Samsung as a company, however I've
had similar issues with other companies as well.

------
david-cako
You can thank Louis Rossmann, in part, for this one.

His livelihood does depend on it (although he has acknowledged that, as
electronics get more disposable, he will inevitably end up having to shift
into something like software or hardware design), but he has made a really
admirable effort of actually going boots-on-the-ground and lobbying at
political hearings.

~~~
M4v3R
His videos on YouTube when he teaches people how to do board-level Macbook
repairs, for free (while advertising his own business of course):
[https://www.youtube.com/user/rossmanngroup/videos](https://www.youtube.com/user/rossmanngroup/videos)

Even though I'm a programmer and not really a hardware guy, I find watching
him repairing stuff very interesting and oddly satisfying. He often even does
all this on a live stream.

PS. For some reason most of his videos get a "do you want a website" preroll
ad, which is already a running joke on his streams.

~~~
TeMPOraL
> _PS. For some reason most of his videos get a "do you want a website"
> preroll ad, which is already a running joke on his streams._

Just got that ad... in Polish. Seriously, what's going on with that? Why
always this ad?

------
noam87
I've been thinking recently that there is exists a completely unxplored market
in tech. Local shops based around FOSS / open hardware where designers,
hardware and software people work together to build custom projects for their
clients. I would call this person a "technology artisan", because the closest
analogue I can think of is a tailor or a carpinter.

So, for example, a family would go to their local technology artisan to put
together a smart home system tailored specifically to their needs. Or perhaps
a local band would commision some custom-made Raspberry Pi-based synthesizer
with fancy lights for a show
([https://youtu.be/_nBK8sAl9nw](https://youtu.be/_nBK8sAl9nw))

To the consumer, it would mean not only devices tailored to their needs, but
also ones that are cheap and simple to get repaired and extended, because they
would be based on open standards. No lock-ins, no secret surveilance.

What makes me think this is possible is how big the hobby space is around all
these hackable technologies (raspberry pi / arduino, 3D printing,
electronics)... people are already building home media centres and farm bots
in their back yard just for fun. Hacker spaces are already a thing -- make
them a service!

~~~
orf
Wouldn't that be insanely expensive compared to off the shelf solutions and
result in a hodge-podge of insecure, half baked solutions?

~~~
wtallis
> a hodge-podge of insecure, half baked solutions?

That's exactly what the commercial market of Internet of Things devices is so
far. You couldn't really make it worse by putting a replaceable ESP8266 or
BeagleBone at the heart of each of these gadgets.

------
AceyMan
Anyone in this thread know or should know THE GUY who tackles these
considerations from the orthogonal position — AvE ("Arduinio vs Evil").

He cracks gear open _before he 's ever turned it on_ to look for build quality
and/or any janky crap, then reassembles and runs it after. (No, he's not
batting 1.000, but he's good.)

Classic teardown here of some sweet gear from the <hint> fourth smallest
country (area) in Europe (0m37s, 1m06s & 1m21s are +1 moments, btw.)

URL, [https://youtu.be/Yt2z6hEnQBs](https://youtu.be/Yt2z6hEnQBs)

I'm behind on the comments but I hope someone linked back to the "It Should
Last Fifty Years" thread from the past ~12 mo or so: highly relevant to the
topic at hand.

~~~
thix0tr0pic
for the curious:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13909365](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13909365)

~~~
AceyMan
That's the one. It's action packed mech eng banter, in a good way.

------
diego_moita
Honorable mention to the coffee grinders' manufacturer Baratza. They publish
detailed instructions on how to repair their grinders, make videos showing how
it's done, sell replacement parts and recommend service centers.

[0][https://www.baratza.com](https://www.baratza.com)

~~~
pfooti
This actually factored into my purchasing decision when I got a baratza
grinder. I'd been using a hand crank burr grinder for about a year, and
figured it was worth getting an electric one. Mine is pretty easy to
disassemble, there's mods available (mostly ways to trick it out) and I've
taken it apart to adjust the grind already (plus to clean it and so on).

For me, it was youtube videos of the grinders being used / reassembled /
cleaned that made up my mind. I mean, if you're going to spend $200+ on a
grinder, it's nice to know ahead of time that you can fiddle with it.

------
SeanDav
A long time ago I read a Science Fiction short story about a society where
everything was unrepairable, throwaway and came with expiry dates.

Does not seem too much like Science Fiction nowadays...

 _EDIT: I wonder if anyone might remember the name of the story: The basic
plot is a business man living in a throwaway society manages to convince a
dying man to sell him his personally developed car. A car that has been built
to last for decades. The business man eventually succeeds by promising to
respect the philosophy of the dying man and the manufacturing of machines
built to last. As he is driving the magnificent car away he starts thinking of
the "improvements" he will make. That loud analogue clock on the dashboard
could be replaced by a digital clock and that gear lever knob that could be
made from a modern plastic...._

~~~
Dylan16807
That seems like somewhat of a weak ending, because there's no reason digital
clocks and plastic gear levers can't also last for decades.

Also I'll link a sort of inverse to that tale:
[http://www.eldritchpress.org/owh/shay.html#line01](http://www.eldritchpress.org/owh/shay.html#line01)

~~~
SeanDav
> _" That seems like somewhat of a weak ending, .. "_

I hardly think I gave the story justice, since it is based on my memory from
something like 20 years ago or more and I am sure I am misremembering the
specifics.

But to address the points that were raised:

It is a convertible and plastic does not do well in the sun. Then next year
the company decides that they can save 50% on manufacturing cost by using a
cheaper and thinner plastic, which would only last 10 years, rather than the
decades of the alloy it replaced originally, but that is more than enough time
for any car. Then soon after that the company decides that 10 years is still
too long and they can save even more by.....

First a digital clock, then a digital clock that gets wifi updates, then a
digital clock that tracks and transmits your locations, then a digital clock
that won't work unless the company sends a heartbeat code, then...you get the
idea...it is a slippery slope.

------
karllager
I am the proud owner of a Laptop, that I can enjoy for years to come, since I
can upgrade and replace disks, RAM and battery (hint: it's the last Macbook
Pro that allowed this).

Recently my smartphone battery died and I could order a new one for less than
$10 and replace it in 20 seconds.

Both devices are more that four years old but I am not going to replace them
with something, that does not have at least this amount of repairability.

Smartphones and laptops with soldered batteries, RAM or SSD? Come on, these
things are not throwaway devices - even if this is what marketing wants you to
believe.

------
microcolonel
I think the trend of reclassifying popular commodities or opportunities as
"rights" is pretty tacky, and ultimately counterproductive.

What you should really want, if you like reparability, is a market for
reparable goods. In general, it will be more costly than mass-produced
integrated goods, but foisting repair opportunities onto _every_ consumer
product will ultimately make people less satisfied with the products on the
market, and it will make those products less accessible (and more expensive).

As for cars, I think there's a real market opportunity to make your cars
exceptionally open to repair, but I don't think mandating it is a good idea.
Especially as powertrain designs become more and more complex, the likelihood
that you will be able to correctly reassemble them dwindles. The onus must
remain on the customers and technicians to meet the technical demands of
repair.

A line in the sand must be drawn between "difficult to repair" and "illegal to
repair". The first is at the hands of the customer, the second, the
legislature.

As for software, sure, the DMCA is unfair, it should have been struck down
long ago. It is being abused constantly, and serves little or no practical
purpose except to enable abuse.

~~~
LambdaComplex
Nothing is being "reclassified." Look at John Deere tractors - thanks to the
licensing of the software running on those tractors, combined with the DMCA,
people _do not have the right to repair them_. Yes, they bought the tractor,
but they will be breaking the law if they fix the tractor themselves.

Being able to work on a machine you own sounds much more like a "right" than
an "opportunity" to me.

~~~
microcolonel
I'm specifically not arguing for the DMCA provisions which legally protect
physical objects based on the copyright on data encoded in them. That is not
the whole of what is being argued for, though.

Repair is not a right, ownership is. The problem here is that the DMCA allows
something that you consider your property to be ultimately owned by somebody
else even after you purchase it.

The problem with smartphones is entirely separate, it's a question of
convenience and practicality for third-party repair shops and people who can
afford repair tooling for their own devices.

I object to the idea that manufacturers should have a duty to package and sell
separately replacement parts for their goods on the open market.

------
jokoon
Planned obsolescence is why I will never invest more than 100 euros into a
phone. I will always wait to buy low-priced, fast enough for me hardware.

I still remember how my macbook pro started to be slow and unusable after OSX
updates.

My real wish is that one day, computer or smartphone hardware might last at
least 5 or even 10 years. I know software is evolving quickly, but there comes
a point where I don't think you need to upgrade your hardware, the hardware is
just fast enough to do certain things with today's software. At one point,
software should stop changing so often. Then maybe we won't need to toss
hardware anymore.

I don't like Apple products, but it surely is funny that they realized they
were making durable products and started to see it as a problem.

~~~
nicky0
In my recent experience, my Mac has got faster after each macOS update. They
seem to be putting a lot of effort into performance.

I'm just not seening the evidence of this "planned obsolescence". I would put
it on the level of a conspiracy theory. Little hard evidence in favour, but
anecdoes accepted as fact by those inclined to believe them.

As a counter-anecdote, as it happens I'm typing this on my 2011 Mac mini, my
main work machine, which is still going strong. Just upgraded to High Sierra -
the seventh major OS version this machine has seen. It's working well and and
no sign of Apple trying to force me to buy anything new.

~~~
10000100001010
It is a documented problem [1]. That does not mean that every company does it
though.

[1] [http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/g202/planned-
obso...](http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/g202/planned-
obsolescence-460210/)

~~~
lloeki
<rant>

What? Apart for ink cartridges, for which some manufacturers are know to have
some hard counters, this list is beyond ridiculous. Planned obsolescence means
a conscious design to fail at a certain mark, a carefully evaluated MTBF in
order to extract financial gain.

1\. Just a description: "planned obsolescence" is wilful design into failure
that makes one turn a greater profit at the expense of consumers.

2\. Some ink cartridges are know to have hard counters, so that's one OK, but
the recommendation is about taking a risk: third party ink might not be up to
spec and clog things up (happens).

3\. Backwards compat on SNES would have meant including the NES hardware into
the SNES, driving costs up. Plus this happened in a modular way with addons
such as the Super Game Boy. Also, the PS2, X360 and PS3 shelf life are a
testament to the dedication of keeping things up and running. Also also,
suddenly not keeping the old hardware around to throw it away somehow
contradicts later claims of "buying used instead of new".

4\. This is only valid with the cooperation of lazy teachers: "refer to
exercise 4 on page 32". I've been using 10+ years old books to learn and teach
math, physics, french, history... New editions strive to streamline the
experience, fix mishaps, and comply with legal requirements and state-mandated
education programs.

5\. Fashion, by definition, is zeitgeist. Culture and style evolve, there's no
conspiracy at play, this is human nature creatively plowing forward.

6\. What's the benefit for MS to make people buy new computers? I don't see
the logic here. If anything, people are _less_ inclined to buy new software if
it makes them buy a new computer. Do you really think there's a shady deal
between Adobe and Dell so that Adobe makes its software hungrier and receive a
cut on sales because Dell sales would go up? Maintaining old versions has a
cost, and unless you want to ceaselessly accrete dead weight like a black hole
you have two choices: go forward and cut dead weight at some point, or not go
forward and be stuck in the past (because obviously everything was better back
in the day, y'know). Also, software is made by people, and those people need
to eat (even FOSS folks!), plus increasingly said software rely on services
that need to be kept up running, and that has a cost too. Nothing entitles you
to receive a lifetime of upgrades after paying a couple bucks (if at all).
Expecting (almost coercing!) people to do what you want for free has a name:
exploitation.

7\. Nothing prompts you to buy a new car every year. People would be surprised
at the number of common parts cars share if they were even remotely interested
in mechanics. Not only the whole statement contradicts 3. but how would you
buy used if nobody bought new cars and resold them? Also, there's not just old
cars pollute more and are less safe.

8\. I've yet to see a battery that outright disables itself after a set number
of cycle use. Batteries are designed to last _at least_ a given number of
cycles, not _at most_. LiPo, which has taken the world by storm due to its
lack of memory effect and outstanding performance and durability, is extremely
dangerous to handle. Requirements as well as improvements in hardware have
been plateauing, which makes it less appealing to have things componentized
for upgrades. Hardware durability has dramatically increased too. The whole
thing contributes to people changing stuff _less_ often instead of _more_
because it just works, for longer stretches of time. Again there is no wilful
intent to cripple things. There is one egregious case that can be made about
Android phones, but that's got more to do about lack of focus, misguided
bullet-point differentiation strategy and subsequent lack of resource to keep
phones up to date than a grim large scale scam.

9\. Ah, light bulbs. Great example. You know, if you get cheap, badly
engineered crap, it has a high probability of both being less efficient and
not last long. That's not a grand evil scheme, that's just "Want cheap? Get
crap."

So, we get it, turning a profit is bad, corporations are evil and conspire to
exploit the masses. Because that's what "planned obsolescence" is about:
wilful design into failure that makes one turn a greater profit at the expense
of consumers. How cynical a view is that, pushed by people that have no clue
about what engineering is: designing within terrible, unfathomable physics,
monetary and human constraints the best product you can. Abusive practices _do
exist_ , but seriously, most of the time it's just cost pressure or bad design
(probably one driving the other). This kind of list is way too superficial and
does nothing to make things better.

~~~
mcguire
" _New editions strive to streamline the experience, fix mishaps, and comply
with legal requirements and state-mandated education programs._ "

True story: I was ICDCS '98, perusing the textbooks with my advisor and some
of his ex-students, and see the new (6th?) edition of Silberschatz's OS book.
"Oh, yeah", one of my advisor's older students says, "Avi does have another
kid going to college this year."

------
feelin_googley
"In the future, repairability is likely to become even more of an issue, says
Kyle Wiens, iFixit's chief executive. Not only do firms want customers to use
authorised dealers, but a growing number of products are also _no longer
stand-alone devices_ , but rather _delivery vehicles for services that
generate additional revenues._ "

Gee, I wonder who started that trend?

~~~
mastax
Gillette?

Having started to use a safety razor recently, I'm starting to think that the
impetus for moving to cartridge razors was just to make the refills harder to
interchange and less of a commodity.

~~~
yourapostasy
Along similar lines, if you get isopropyl alcohol (I use 90% grade, but 70%
may also work), after using your razor, dry it off, and spray your razor with
the alcohol, the alcohol displaces any remaining water and sanitizes at the
same time. It makes the razor last longer. Works on electric razors, too.

~~~
ghaff
Way back when, someone in school did some sort of senior project along these
lines. Yeah, as I recall, most of the accumulated damage to razor blades is
associated with corrosion rather than wear from cutting.

------
walrus1066
It's still doable, and lots of great online guides and videos on how to repair
smartphones, laptops etc.

I replaced my smartphone earpiece, following an ifixit.com guide. Was
initially daunted, given the expense of the handset, but it just took a set of
mini screwdrivers and a wedge, 20 minutes, and has been working good as new
for the last 3 months. Very satisfying experience.

~~~
Infernal
I had a similar experience, with my iPhone 6 wifi/bluetooth/GPS antenna.
Started seeing degraded connectivity and Googled around till I had it narrowed
down to that antenna. Was nervous about ripping it apart so first took it to
the Apple store with my diagnosis - they said the only choice was to buy a new
phone.

So, I borrowed my buddy's pentalobe driver set and about an hour later had
pulled the logic board out, replaced the antenna, and buttoned it all back up.
That's been about a year ago and it's still working perfectly. And the new
antenna was something like $6 on Amazon...

~~~
userbinator
...and chances are that was simply a solder joint or similar that cracked from
the vibration of normal use, since antennae absolutely do not "wear out" from
just transmitting or receiving.

~~~
Infernal
Oh absolutely, it uses an attachment that is kind of like a very tiny 9-volt
battery terminal, with a nub on one side and a circular spring clip on the
other. The one of the four spring clips on the antenna broke off and remained
attached to the logic board as I recall, so just had to pop the now-orphaned
clip off the logic board after removing the antenna and snap the new one into
place.

------
gjem97
I really get frustrated at how many small appliances I end up throwing out. It
just doesn't make sense to repair a food processor that breaks. This stuff
that's made with a plastic housing doesn't last more than 5 years in my house.

Then I look over at my Kitchenaid mixer. You know the iconic one that would
look right at home in the kitchen of the 1960s. It's constructed durably, it's
repairable, and people go out of their way to spend more to get it. I can get
it repaired if it breaks. Why can't all appliances be like my Kitchenaid
mixer?

~~~
GhostVII
> Why can't all appliances be like my Kitchenaid mixer?

Because people don't like to spend extra for quality products. For most
appliances, there are brands that sell quality versions which will last for
years, but lots of people just look for the lowest priced one with the
features that they want, and buy it.

~~~
kps
Because people have been bitten by products and brands being milked, keeping
higher price but not higher quality.

------
amelius
Why don't we just pay for _services_ instead of buying products? This pushes
the problem of maintenance to the service provider, thus making it more
efficient and thus cheaper and more environment-friendly. Also, it completely
eliminates the problem of planned obsolescence.

There are some downsides, such as that usage of the service outside the
contract becomes impossible, so contracts should be sufficiently broad (and
not targeting just the average people). And you don't "own" your product
(which could be a psychological problem). But I guess that's about it.

~~~
BartSaM
Now, when Steam decides that you have violated their ToS in some way, they
will close your account and lock you out of everything you bought. This
happens, rarely, but happens.

Do you want to be dependant on an idea of a corporation that they will treat
you fair?

Are you OK to give away your washing machine and oven just because you had
troubles with finances and you missed one payment?

~~~
kartickv
We're more dependent on corporations when we buy things, since we have given
them all the money upfront. A service model gives us more leverage.

As someone who had to throw away a washing machine because the company
wouldn't service it, I would have very much preferred a rental model where the
loss would have been theirs.

To flip your question: Are you okay not being able to buy a washing machine
because you couldn't make a significant one-time payment? Are you okay with
your investment going waste because the company wouldn't service it? I would
say no to both.

~~~
TeMPOraL
> _We 're more dependent on corporations when we buy things, since we have
> given them all the money upfront. A service model gives us more leverage._

No, we aren't and no, it doesn't. Buying things up-front means your
interaction with a corporation is brief and to the point. With service model,
they get to gouge you for money _and_ restrict the things you can do with the
item you now don't own, but rent.

> _Are you okay not being able to buy a washing machine because you couldn 't
> make a significant one-time payment?_

There are plenty of ways to amortize that using _third parties_ that have no
interest in limiting your control over the washing machine.

Also, it's you who get to choose when to do the purchase. Once you enter a
contract, you'd better have a stable paycheck for the entire duration of it,
or you'll be SOL.

~~~
kartickv
That's wrong. A service model gives me leverage — I stop paying the rent
whenever I want and return the washing machine. Maybe you have a different
service model in mind, like a contract, in which case we'd naturally disagree,
but I'm not talking about such a model.

Neither do I care about my flexibility to modify my washing machine. All I
care is that it washes my clothes well.

BTW, what's "SOL"?

~~~
TeMPOraL
> _That 's wrong. A service model gives me leverage — I stop paying the rent
> whenever I want and return the washing machine._

It's more inconvenient to you not to be able to use a washing machine when you
need it than it is for a service provider to have a random customer unable to
pay them on time.

> _BTW, what 's "SOL"?_

Shit Out of Luck.

~~~
kartickv
It seems that I didn't explain the model I have in mind: the washing machine
would be installed in my house, and I pay them a monthly fee, which I can
discontinue any time, at which point they'll come take away their washing
machine.

In this model, I have the washing machine to use whenever I need it. If it
breaks, or if I need a bigger capacity model, or I'm not happy with its
performance, I can immediately switch to another supplier. Paying for the
entire machine up front closes my options. They already have my money, so they
can offer poor service and get away with it.

------
supernintendo
Does anyone know what the best, most-serviceable laptop is in 2017? Looking
for something with decent hardware and Linux support. It seems like the trend
is toward soldered-on parts.

~~~
leggomylibro
Look into Clevo/Sager resellers. Places like System76. They can be hit-or-miss
- I've had one excellent machine that lasted 6 years, but also one terrible
experience with a borked GPU that put me off of them more or less permanently.
Getting any sort of support or repairs for parts that you can't replace
yourself is difficult.

Still, they tend to have highly modular, easy-to-swap-out parts. Hard drives,
wireless cards, RAM, keyboards, battery, it's usually all removable and they
sell spares for custom parts like the keyboards. Many of their devices even
have a full CPU socket on the motherboard, so you could keep a good one
running for a very long time.

If you luck out and get a good one.

~~~
userbinator
Those also tend to be very large, gaming-oriented, desktop replacement
"laptops", so not ideal for everyone looking for something they can actually
keep on their lap for any length of time. They're so modular because they're
designed like a desktop, with lots of full-size parts and little emphasis on
thinness.

If by "borked GPU" you're referring to the nVidia BGA failures, those weren't
the fault of the laptop manufacturer. HP and Toshiba, among others, were
affected severely by that too.

~~~
leggomylibro
It's been a little while since I looked, but they did used to make smaller and
more portable models even though their lines definitely skew towards hulking
powerhouses.

I remember the 11" W110ER fondly; it was tiny, but it still had a discrete
GPU. Those were the days...as much as I love the small ARM Chromebooks, they
do lack power for most sorts of realtime rendering applications.

I'm not sure what the exact issue was, but I got a new machine with a card
that hung under reproducible conditions (as well as seemingly random ones)
over several operating systems and use cases. I thought that BGA issues mostly
came after a little while of thermal stressing on the boards and the
footprint. But you never know; shit happens.

------
Chiba-City
These are complex consumer taxing drip feeds of information, upgrades, service
faults, repair services and so forth. It seems to mostly feed dumps.

Slightly industrial grade hardware is often field repairable. I go for new or
refurbed durable low depreciation tools worth mastering. Emacs, weather sealed
camera gear or even cookware are examples.

Otherwise I use low power almost disposable Chromebook, Chromecast and Moto-G
away from a Linux box with cheap reasonable dumb screens and bluetooth
speakers.

The haptics of consumer tools are churned far too easily for business models.
Windows XP showed how too slowly depreciating good enough assets in the field
upset vendors. Constant maintenance and futzing are taxes outside actually
advancing any state of the art. I don't drive living in a midstory DC building
together saving about +50% of typical American transport and HVAC power
budgets. And I don't sport shop or even eat energy intensive packaged food
mysteries.

Good and operationally efficient habits can go well enough with software and
city living.

------
shmerl
DRM anti-circumvention provisions also should be repealed for good.

------
winterismute
Can't read the article, but for the folks in London or around in the UK, you
should check out this company, they organize events to promote repair culture
and workshop (also as company events) where experts will teach you how to fix
common problems:
[https://therestartproject.org/](https://therestartproject.org/)

~~~
J_Sherz
This is really cool, the data collection part reminds me of those water
fountains at airports that tell you how many plastic water bottles they've
kept out of landfill - that kind of feedback is very motivating.

Would love to know if something like this exists in New York.

------
kartickv
Won't the issue take care of itself if: 1) Companies are taxed for the all the
environmental pollution they case and 2) The minimum warranty period is 5
years. If the device fails before that, the company should lend you a
replacement for the remainder of the warranty period, or refund a prorated
amount.

~~~
yann63
> The minimum warranty period is 5 years

Why 5 years? Why not 4 or 6? Actually, I think the warranty period should
increase, always. For example by one month every year. So a product sold in
2017 has a warranty of 2 years (24 months). A product sold in 2018 would have
a warranty of 25 months. A product sold in 2019 would have a warranty of 26
months. And so on... This would encourage (force!) companies R&D to always
improve products, but at a sustainable speed.

Of course the figures given above should be tweaked better, maybe start at 3
or 4 years warranty very soon, increase by 1, 2 or 3 months per year, I don't
know.

~~~
kartickv
> Why 5 years? Why not 4 or 6?

Maybe it can be 6 instead of 5. That's an unnecessary detail for you to obsess
about at this point. Instead focus on the larger issue, which is that
governments should force companies to give a much longer warranty period than
the typical 1 year. That will make companies design for longevity, reducing
costs for customers and environmental damage.

------
yahna
How about right to use your stuff how you want?

Like not paying 10s of thousands for a Tesla that has a clause against using
autopilot with ride sharing services other than Tesla.

~~~
4ad
Where do I find all this mythical stuff that I want?

I want a new car with no software, no computers, no GPS, no radio, no power
windows, no keyless entry, no thermostat. Where do I find it? Realistically I
can only chose between crap I don't want.

And if I buy an older car, not only I have to deal with problems that would
otherwise be avoidable if I bought a new car, but the government doesn't want
me to use old cars. Great freedom of choice. What a life.

~~~
leopoldo
You know what? I got your answer, I have this beautiful 0-mile device without
all those gadgets and crap. No keyless entry, no GPS, no radio, no
(power)windows, no thermostat, minor software and computers (just to control
the engine and emmissions). If you want add-ons you add them yourself:

\- GPS -> mount your smartphone

\- Thermostat -> more/less clothes

\- Radio -> get a bluetooth headset for your helmet

\- The list can go on and on...

You just described my motorcycle! Beautiful 0-miles engine (took it out of the
dealership this week). It has no unnecessary stuff and that's what I love the
most about it. I do pretty much all the maintenance myself and the community
of motorcycle riders is very supportive and helpful to do so.

Now... Why isn't there a car company that builds cars on the same level of
complexity? I know comfort/luxury sells. But there should be a tier of cars
that are easily serviceable.

Meanwhile, I highly recommend you get a motorcycle :)

~~~
wcarron
I also ride a motorcycle. Just got a new sportster and love it. I'll agree
that it is wonderful not ever having to adjust a damn radio, roll windows up
or worry about broken AC. It's great for all the reasons you described.

I also agree with your point that there __should__ be a market for a no-frills
car of the same design philosophy.

However, I would NEVER recommend that someone get a motorcycle. You and I both
know the risks. Literally every time we roll out we can be killed or maimed
brutally. I think it's actually pretty irresponsible to recommend them to
other people.

> Per vehicle mile traveled, motorcyclists' risk of a fatal crash is 35 times
> greater than a passenger car. Source:
> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorcycle_safety#Accident_Rat...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorcycle_safety#Accident_Rates)
> (the official sources are cited in the article)

Now, I could totally be missing the humor in this, in which case, ignore me.

~~~
userbinator
_I think it 's actually pretty irresponsible to recommend them to other
people._

I disagree. It's the old freedom vs. security/safety argument. I have no
qualms about recommending motorcycles or even just older and simpler cars,
because safety is not the only factor and a lot of the time it's used as an
argument to take away freedom. You can be perfectly safe by spending your
entire life locked away in a jail cell... and you'll still die.

~~~
wcarron
It's not that I think people should not ride motorcycles. It's that WE are
aware of the heightened level of danger, extra things to watch for, etc. Most
people are not and recommending motorcycles casually to people who may not
grasp the risks is setting them up to get fucked, pardon the language.

I do think an amendment to my original statement is needed, though: I would
NEVER recommend them to other people without firmly impressing upon them the
value of safety courses and the risks involved.

------
a1studmuffin
I'd be willing to replace my one-off expensive tech purchases with a
subscription model for a specific hardware manufacturer instead. The
subscription would get you your device (smartphone, car, fridge etc.) and
ongoing support & servicing. You'd be entitled to an upgrade at a
predetermined interval.

I'd hope this scheme would be good for the consumer as they'd find it easier
to budget (spread out regular payments), good for the environment as
manufacturers would no longer have any incentive to make things hard to repair
(forced upgrade cycles, ecosystem lock-in), and good for the manufacturer as
they could focus less on forced upgrade cycles and more on a quality product
to keep the consumer subscribed.

~~~
driverdan
You're describing the traditional cell phone financing model in the US. It's
not good because it costs more and locks you into the provider.

------
xoa
I will admit that I am not a fan of the "right to repair" movement in terms of
what I've seen from it so far when it comes to actual legislative proposals,
and I also find a lot of the way it talks down to current consumers and market
forces distasteful and short sighted. I can absolutely see how in some areas
of production narrowly tailored rules might be beneficial in terms of efforts
manufacturers make to prevent repair purely for anti-competitive reasons. But
there are at least two critical, legitimate benefits/tradeoffs (and in turn
questions) that more broad based efforts have to address in my opinion. I'm
going to use Apple as an example here given they're a legitimate example of
both and also big and broadly well known.

1: _Security_. The fact is that there is an absolutely enormous (and growing)
amount of value in a fully trusted hardware stack. Apple has taken a lot of
flack from "right to repair" over issues like not being able to "repair" the
Touch ID, but I haven't seen any great answers over how to allow any random
3rd party to repair Touch ID without also meaning any random malicious 3rd
party (including legitimate repair shops in some scenarios) could replace it
with something hostile too. I _actively do not want_ anyone but Apple to be
able to mess with the hardware authentication chain on my iPhone, even though
I do support legislation to (and have written to my reps in favor of) require
manufactures to allow users to additionally add their own master keys for
running software on top of it. Having the option to minimize the number
parties who can alter your hardware is something that has value.

I think a well crafted system might be able to square this via dual chains
that an owner could pick on purchase and appropriate manufacturer liability
mitigations. So for example you could choose "only Apple may ever modify the
trusted core of this device" or "anyone with the key can" and in each case
Apple would utilize a separate root private key. In the former case it'd be
like right now where Apple never shares that, in the latter they'd offer
signed leafs to anyone who asked so any 3rd party could make the repair (and
sign off on it) instead. In the latter case Apple would also be relieved of
all liability for any damage ever done due to a 3rd party Touch ID repair,
though I suppose in practice they might still face legitimate PR damage (but
that should be able to be minimized if it's clear enough that the owner
willingly gave up protections).

2: _Active /Dumb Matter ratios and dynamic flexibility_: The other issue is
that "repairability" in many of the formulations I see in HN and other tech
community discussions comes with a lot of costs of its own that aren't
address. A trivial, super common example is the battery. It's hard to go a
single mobile phone discussion without somebody complaining about how they
want the trivially replaceable batteries of yore. However, there are
fundamental tradeoffs there in terms of actual basic physics. A user swappable
battery has to have physical connectors capable of repeated usage. It cannot
be soldered on. The battery itself must have its own safe case. The phone case
must be altered to allow the swapping which requires structural compromises vs
a solid piece. The battery must generally be a reasonably simple geometric
shape, rather then whatever arbitrary shape the manufacturer wants to maximize
volume in relation to other facts of the internal design.

All of which ultimately boils down to lots of extra matter that _isn 't
battery or phone_. There isn't any way around that with current technology. A
smartphone using a non-swappable battery will always fundamentally have more
single capacity, be lighter, or both, and of course can still just utilize an
external battery pack if bulk is not an issue and more between-charge run time
is necessary. Swappable has its own use case, but it's not a slam dunk at all
nor is it a conspiracy nor are regular consumers "stupid" for preferring a
different balance of trade offs.

This same sort of tradeoffs happens elsewhere, where more integration allows
for fundamentally more efficient and superior performing designs at the cost
of making it harder to repair. And this too is an environmental issue: across
billions of phones, extra dead matter adds up all by itself.

\----

I'm not saying that there isn't abuse, that complaints about John Deere and
the like aren't justified, or that there is no room for better rules. But
particularly with electronics a lot of these questions really do seem like
they're best answered by the markets, and that legislation should first be
focused purely on making those more efficient (by ensuring that externalities
from total lifecycle costs are all in the price up front for example). Any
legislation directly interfering should be treated cautiously and given a lot
of careful consideration. I'm worried that much of the movement I've seen so
far is too focused on its own narrow use cases rather then the general
population, and not giving a sufficient level of thoughtfulness to how
different areas of the overall world market face different use and threat
scenarios. A lot of tech people have a bad habit of calling incredibly smart
people "dumb" for sharing different priorities wrt technology, and failing in
turn to consider whether their cases can be addressed without it being a zero-
sum game. I don't want to see the proverbial baby thrown out with the bath
water here is all.

~~~
hutzlibu
"I actively do not want anyone but Apple to be able to mess with the hardware
authentication chain on my iPhone"

If you give something away to repair you allways have to trust them. If they
are evil, there are almost unlimited ways to manipulate and plant spyware etc.
Apple devices might indeed be harder to manipulate, but I doubt an expert will
have much trouble with it, if he has physical access to it.

So in the end, by locking it more down, you are just locking yourself more to
apple. If that's what you want, fine. But don't expect to be really more
secure because of it.

~~~
throwaway613834
> If you give something away to repair you always have to trust them.

I got confused about this initially too, but that's not relevant to the
argument being made here. The argument isn't about repair -- that's something
you can always avoid. The argument is about others (thiefs, etc.) messing with
security-related components and bypassing security. He doesn't want that to be
possible.

~~~
hutzlibu
" He doesn't want that to be possible."

But it is and allways will be. You can make it harder, yes, but in my opinion
the benefits are way smaller than the disadvantages.

~~~
throwaway613834
Possible != practical. His threat model most likely doesn't include the NSA,
and for normal adversaries hardware security can be plenty sufficient.

------
quickben
As the era of high interest rates is about to return, this 'right to repair'
will be more pronounced. Not because of some ideology, but because people will
_have_ to repair electronics.

------
valuearb
If I want my laptop to be a lighter thinner appliance glued together in an
aluminum body so tightly that it’s super tough and resistant to damage, will I
still be able to have that?

~~~
dx034
In reality, most parts will still not be glued but use screws. And even if
it's glued, replacing it shouldn't be an issue if the company sells the
equipment?

------
m3kw9
You get more bulky and expensive device for the right to repair. Would not
want that.

~~~
bo1024
I think you are confusing two different problems with repair (the article does
not do a great job distinguishing them).

1) Difficulty to repair because of physical design, e.g. goods that are
physically challenging to open and modify or require specialized tools. This
is often a reasonable side-effect of making devices as small or light as
possible. I.e. making it physically difficult to repair.

2) Erecting legal barriers to repair by asserting that people may not legally
attempt to repair or modify things they "own", using DMCA or copyright laws.
I.e., making it illegal even to try.

As far as I know, the right to repair movement is centered around #2 and does
not address #1. If it does address #1, I would guess it's only for cases where
a company purposely makes something physically more difficult to repair for a
reason unrelated to functionality, e.g. invents a new fastener with no
functional advantage over a screw but that requires a multi-thousand dollar
device to open.

But again, right-to-repair is almost exclusively about #2 as far as I know.

(edit) actually, a lot of people in the thread are making the same conflation.

~~~
dx034
In addition to legal barriers, #2 can also be about specialised parts that are
not documented and not sold (officially). E.g. inventing new screws just to
make it harder to open a case.

------
MrQuincle
Is there something a consumer electronics company can do allowing people to
update or upgrade components or firmware in such a way that we are not
basically forced to void the warranty?

~~~
leggomylibro
Provide breakout headers or pogo pads to the relevant chips. Like, if your
pebble had its STM32F439's SWDIO and SWCLK pins broken out, you could probably
flash it just like an Arduino if it weren't for the copy/write protection
stuff that they likely used.

I dunno, what about others? Make several small and removable boards rather
than one a single large one? Don't use BGA components whenever possible?
Publish your layout schematics, or at least pinouts?

But as a manufacturer, why would you do any of that if you don't have to?
It'll just let your competitors easily steal your hard work, and 99.9% of
people will never use it. The problem comes when Apple makes that sort of
thinking part of the zeitgeist when talking about iPhones, and before you know
it fucking tractor companies are decides that 'licensing' a product is much
better than selling one.

I tell you what, I'm just waiting for a high-tech lathe that is 'owned' by
some manufacturer to accidentally tear someone's arm off. Or worse, a semi-
autonomous warehouse/assembly robot goes haywire around people. If the
operator was just licensing it, the owner had better have good insurance.

~~~
pdelbarba
Most of these chips can actually be flashed no problem. They just have a
fuse/bit that disables read over JTAG and to disable that you have to zero the
entire device memory. This means that you can put whatever firmware on that
you want, but you'll never have access to the old binary code that was running
it, so making patches is impossible unless you can either A) rewrite all the
firmware from scratch, B) find a way of tricking the existing software into
dumping firmware over a port via some sort of overflow, etc or C) glitch the
chip into allowing JTAG access with the bit/fuse set (used to be pretty
common, more rare these days)

------
api_or_ipa
I will say I particularly enjoy the Jeep communities DIY or die attitude about
fixing their vehicles. The dealership may not support them anymore, but plenty
of great individuals pick up the slack and sell parts that often improve on
original flaws.

Mr Blaine from Black Magic Brakes is a great example.
[http://www.blackmagicbrakes.com/](http://www.blackmagicbrakes.com/)

~~~
tmccrmck
My 1995 Jeep Cherokee is the reason why I'm weary of too much electronics in
cars. And I'm a serial electronics tinkerer. Need a new engine? Do it
yourself. Need a new alternator? No problem. Install larger tires? There's a
million kits out there ready for anyone to do it.

And since there's so many enthusiasts out there it's _really_ cheap. I needed
a new door so I bought one for a hundred bucks and installed it myself in 20
minutes.

------
altitudinous
I did not read the article. However with the rise of denser technologies and
mass assembly by machines in order to achieve a price point and manufacturing
volume it is inevitable that we won't be able to repair items ourselves. That
is just the way it is. I wouldn't want to overanalyse it.

You might want to repair something yourself but you are in a minority and the
market wants to buy products for cheap and throw them away at end of life.

~~~
TeMPOraL
The market is not God, and what it wants is not cast in stone. The current
market practices are wasteful, antisocial and unsustainable, but the market
only gives a damn if there's enough pressure for it.

------
NicoJuicy
Well, i love Mercedes as a car. I only don't like the electronics.

Some franchise here in my neighboorhood ( belgium) has bought every garage in
50 km's. Since they are ridiculous expensive ( eg. my uncle got charged 80 €
for grabbing a part from the garage, that was excluding the part cost ...).
It's me last Benz, my cousins also.

Except if i can find one without electronics.

~~~
KozmoNau7
Get an old 1977-85 240d or 300d. It will be slow (like, seriously slow), but
will run basically forever with maintenance that is mostly very DIY friendly,
and it will be surprisingly frugal, partly because of the diesel engine and
partly because it will kill any ambition to speed.

The OM616 and OM617 are some of the most reliable car engines ever produced.

------
jxramos
This article taught me about Liam
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYshVbcEmUc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYshVbcEmUc)
"It is also investing in technology that makes it easier to recycle its
products, such as Liam, a robot for disassembling iPhones."

Very cool!

------
ghostly_s
Why do links to paywalled articles get posted here?

------
contingencies
The real issue is that consumers are stupid and want to stay stupid which
means modular products, being more complicated, are not something they are
going to shell out for.

It's a lot easier to say "buy this widget for $x a month for 48 months"
(classic US example) than to say "what computer do you have? oh you don't
know. why don't we arrange for me to have a look at it another day. uhuh. ok
well i've taken a look and if we upgrade the graphics card, hard disk and ram
we can probably get that working really nicely for you".

People just don't care. They want a result now, they want it to have a name,
they want it to be marketed, they want to show it off and lord it over their
proverbial neighbor.

Petty, stupid consumers are the real problem.

Fixing this situation, which has accelerated under the influence of commercial
media and dwindling state education budgets in many western countries
essentially must begin with education and regulation.

~~~
thatswrong0
Or maybe they aren't stupid and they're simply acting in their own self-
interest, which means not wasting their time with unnecessarily more
complicated products that offer little to them in return. Or maybe they do
want the products they use to be status symbols. Or maybe they simply don't
share your point of view.

This doesn't mean they're necessarily stupid, it means they're different from
you.

~~~
ToxicCorgi
I disagree; there is some definition of 'stupid' that exists in the same shape
and form in most consumers. It stems from laziness, desire for showing off and
instant gratification, and lack of critical thinking when being bombarded with
marketing BS like cool visuals, gimmicky features and awesome keywords. The
same self-interest leads to them being stupid and, usually, staying stupid.

The stupidity of the average consumer manifests itself in not wanting to
"waste time" with some "nerdy tech thingamajig" (boohoo muh computer is slow,
must be the viruses and need more RAM, lemme buy myself a new one, ooh look
the slimmest model, lemme get that. Soldered everything? Non-user replaceable
battery? Huh, wtf are those. It's slim and pretty tho) or comparing products
on the shelf to make the best, most practical choice (it has X famous brand
name that's associated with cool and expensive, great to show off to friends,
especially on social media because everyone on there cares. Oh there's a vocal
bunch speaking about bad reliability, poor quality that falls apart 1 year and
1 day after purchase and terrible price/performance ratio? Must be lies spread
by dem haters).

Yup, pre-purchase research and post-purchase diagnostics (not even asking for
much, just googling a problem to see if it's unfixable/too expensive to fix)
are things today's consumers would rather not 'waste time' with because they
clearly have better things to do that aren't a waste of time, like taking more
selfies for Snapchat, raking in likes and loves on Facebook and Instagram and
surfing the internet (anyone up for more shopping and getting 'inspiration'
from friends on what to buy next to one-up them?) on their $2000 Facebook/web
browsing machine and $1000 phone.

The best part is very few of these people learn from others and their own
mistakes. They'll continue to buy the same crappy products because they saw a
cool ad or all their friends are talking about it without any thinking or
research. They'll stay loyal to overpriced brands with poor reliability
because 'dat brand name doe' and continue with their need to see and be seen
having/doing/wanting cool things. Simple reading to make an informed buying
decision? Too uncool! F-that!

~~~
KozmoNau7
On the other end of the spectrum, you have people who spend so much time
agonizing over which PC/phone/blender to get that they end up in a circle of
not being able to decide.

I've spend more time than I'm willing to divulge, deciding which portable
speaker to get, because every option is flawed in some way. Most of them seem
to follow the Apple school of thought, "why would you ever want to take this
apart?", and are glued or even plastic welded together.

In the end, I'll probably go with the Marshall Kilburn, simply for the fact
that it's relatively easy to replace the batteries (standard 18650 cells)
behind a panel that is simply screwed on, not glued or otherwise "permanently"
sealed. I may not be able to service the class D amps or the Bluetooth module,
but at least I can replace the batteries or the drivers if one should fail at
some point.

As a drawback, it is somewhat bulkier and heavier than most other options.

