Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I was a young person during the tube era. My dad was one of those guys with a bag full of tubes. The reason he was carrying them around was that NOTHING WORKED. The 'right to repair' was actually, a horrible 'burden of repair'. It's great that it helped Woz made Apple but it was also an era of buggy whips whose passing I do not lament.

I would not support anything that added a microgram to my iPhone or MacBook or give up even one tiny feature to support the tiny fraction of people who can do repairs.

I would be comfortable with establishing a legal framework that allows standing for litigation on the basis of "subverting the right-to-repair for anti-competitive reasons" with those reasons being constrained to behavior truly unwarranted and without meaningful contribution to the quality of the product I get.




It's not supporting "the tiny fraction of people who can do repairs". It's supporting everyone who might choose to take it to a third party instead of Apple when it breaks -- be it for better price, better service, or even to force Apple to be competitive on both fronts. Hell, it's even supporting the very idea of fixable devices, as this arguably impacts not only post-sale support, but also the very design of said devices.

It's not black and white, we don't need to go full cyberpunk wild west to establish some level of control over our electronics.


> be it for better price, better service, or even to force Apple to be competitive on both fronts

Just being able to take your Apple device to a local repair shop, have it diagnosed and repaired while you wait, instead of driving through half the country and having to give up your device for days/weeks because Apple authorised repair centers are not allowed to keep spare parts in stock and have a whole backlog of repairs to perform.


>I would not support anything that added a microgram to my iPhone or MacBook or give up even one tiny feature to support the tiny fraction of people who can do repairs. I would be comfortable with establishing a legal framework that allows standing for litigation on the basis of "subverting the right-to-repair for anti-competitive reasons" with those reasons being constrained to behavior truly unwarranted and without meaningful contribution to the quality of the product I get.

Luckily, nothing I've advocated for will do that!

Keep your A1989 Macbook the way it is. Change nothing, but this one thing: when it stops charging, let Louis(or you) buy an ISL9240 from mouser.com. And let people buy a schematic from Apple, instead of waiting for it to get pirated to vinafix, or leaked to me by a fan who works at Apple.

That's it. That's all.

No change to your device's functionality, no change to your device's weight, no change to your device's software.

Does this sound fair?

I really do want to engage with people who have concerns about what Right to Repair might do to their devices. I want to learn your concerns. I want to learn how to ensure Right to Repair bills, as they are drafted, never inconvenience you or lower the quality of the devices you use. I want to learn how to create messaging that makes it clear that this is my goal.

Serious question, and I'd be honored to get a reply.


> I would not support anything that added a microgram to my iPhone or MacBook or give up even one tiny feature to support the tiny fraction of people who can do repairs.

That is not what the right to repair is about. It is about allowing people who are not the manufacturer or blessed by the manufacturer do a repair.


> to support the tiny fraction of people who can do repairs.

And the massive fraction of people who can now choose who to hire for repairs. It is a lie to claim only repairmen are affected.


> The reason he was carrying them around was that NOTHING WORKED.

You are confusing the advancement of technology with the legal right to modify the things that you own. Completely false equivalence.


This is kind of off topic, but, in my mind, 'right to repair' has more to do with combatting throw-away consumerism versus quality products. Certain appliances could be made much better over having to buy 10 annoying dryers over the course of your lifetime (or whatever product becomes harder to DIY repair.) The amount of waste produced every time someone buys the next generation just because something broke outpaces the ability to recycle/repair, hell even lightbulbs [1]. There's also market value in making things intentionally obsolescent after a small amount of time. For instance, Apple purposefully slowing down an iPhone when there's a new model [2].

I'm not 'anti-consumerist', I'm just aware that we've built a society around throwing things away way before their expected physical lifetime of use.

[1] https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-history/dawn-of-electronics/t... [2] https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-51706635




Applications are open for YC Winter 2023

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: