If you live in the US- There is now an initiative push for a Right To Repair-

[JacquesBBB]

Or go to ifixit to check if the device is easy to repair or not. No need for regulation and stickers.

This is just for a minority of knowledgeable people and will have no impact on the items designs.

In fact, Ifixit is also part of a global effort to try to push  companies to provide more repairable items.
See
http://repaircafe.org/european-coalition-for-repairable-products/
as was already quoted by oldway a little above.

You should read
http://repaircafe.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Mission_Statement_Reparability_and_Durability_of_Products.pdf

[miguelvp]

As a consumer is up to you to vote with your wallet.

As a company is up to them to decide if they want their products totally open with schematics and available parts to be picked up by cloners that don't follow international patent/copyright standards and be driven out of business.

For this effort to take place we would need enforceable import laws like they have in Italy and see where that is getting them to.

So as an American I'm torn between my right to repair the products I purchase and the regulations that will make things more complicated and probably at a cost of the merchandise or the cost of the company going out of business because of full disclosure of their products.

To me is up to the consumer not the government to make those decisions by supporting the manufacturers that align with their needs.

[JacquesBBB]

To me is up to the consumer not the government to make those decisions by supporting the manufacturers that align with their needs.

I have no objection to that, but in order to be effective, the consumer needs to be informed. This is why I think that a proper labelling providing the "degree of repairability"  would be useful, in the same way as the labelling with the energy efficiency has been done.

Then

The consumer can choose wether he prefers to buy a more reparable product at a higher cost or not.

The company can decide  if they want to   make the effort to provide more repairable products. With the label, they know that if they make this effort, the product will be more attractive to consumers.


 

[pickle9000]

The government can do great things. I'm from Canada but I'm thankful for the California government, the smog laws not only improved air quality but are the basis for the obd2 standard. That had massive worldwide benefit.

Should a manufacturer be forced to supply replacement parts for a given product. I say no to that. Should they be forced to provide schematics, part specification, and 3d models of products? If it's in production I say no. If it's out of production yes. At that point it's an abandoned bit of gear. A mp3 player or monitor may only be in production for a matter of months but higher end gear much longer. This would encourage higher quality devices as well as allowing less expensive items to carry on a little longer.

- Would it be a selling point? 
- Could it turn into an industry?
- Would it be good for the environment?
- Would the poor benefit (in and out of country)?

[Kjelt]

I still don,t see it because of the custom chips. Where would you be able to buy the custom asics, cplds, programmed microcontrollers to repair the modern devices?

As a friendly carmechanic once told me every car mechanic can repair a car made before 1990.
But only the car company has the electronic parts to be able to repair a 21st century car.

Perhaps there should be a shift from easy repairable to long lasting, with a hard guarantee from the manufacturer of the product that he can be held to.
There is just too much junk products being sold that last a few months and then throw away, there is no point repairing junk.
If you have a rc battery operated toy car where the gears and bearings are made of plastick instead of metal what do you want to repair? It is totall loss since the design is crap to begin with.

[zapta]

This bill is yet another I-want-X-so-others-should-provide-it-to-me.  In this case its' schematics, documentation and spare parts.

[Noise Floor]

Let me start by saying that I agree with most in thread, I want the ability to be able to repair and hack the things I buy.
However the reason I'm jumping in is to offer the other perspective. 

Just yesterday I was at the car dealership for some ECU programming that could only be done there (supposedly). While in line the individual in front of me was yelling at the service manager about how the manufacturer better fix his car because it was under warranty and it just stopped working.  20 minutes later I'm sitting in the waiting area with the person and I overhear them on their cell phone exclaim "That turbo install didn't go well, so I stripped all the parts back to stock and now having them (dealer) fix it so I can try again with a different AFR mapping; I ran way to lean and screwed something up".  This is not unique, you can go on any car forum and find people regularly discussing modifications they make and then trying to pin responsibility of error on the manufacturer.

My point is only that the companies wanting to make more closed systems is not about preventing honest repairers from doing their thing, it much more about maintaining company control of (quality, profit, service, etc.).  Which for better or for worse, economic forces push large scale businesses (and small?) that direction.

[Rick Law]

To me is up to the consumer not the government to make those decisions by supporting the manufacturers that align with their needs.

I have no objection to that, but in order to be effective, the consumer needs to be informed. This is why I think that a proper labelling providing the "degree of repairability"  would be useful, in the same way as the labelling with the energy efficiency has been done.

Then

The consumer can choose wether he prefers to buy a more reparable product at a higher cost or not.

The company can decide  if they want to   make the effort to provide more repairable products. With the label, they know that if they make this effort, the product will be more attractive to consumers.

If you want to throw unlimited resources at it, repairability is always 100%.

Degree of repair-ability is just a function of how much resource you want to spend repairing it.  So listing it requires too many qualification/assumptions.  So such an index would be rather useless.

re: "The consumer can choose wether he prefers to buy a more reparable product at a higher cost or not. " [SIC]

Folks here are already practicing this alignment.  Reading the 6.5/5.5 digit DMM discussion, the point about availability of parts and repair info is always part of the discussion and is always affecting the resale value of the product.  Right here in this forum, even HP's power-on self test is cited as one of the reason why they are worth more on eBay.

[AlfBaz]

I would of thought the "right to repair" initiative wouldn't be so much a push to provide reparability but to point out the sometimes devious ways some manufacturers actively prevent people from attempting it.

Case in point is the pentalobe screws and the recent discovery that apple made one screw a tiny bit shorter than the others in one of their products so that if it didn't go back in the correct place the six or so other tiny bit longer screws would cut a pcb track on the board below.

To me there seems to be a world of difference between making things easier to repair and actively designing a product so that it cant

[Rick Law]

I would of thought the "right to repair" initiative wouldn't be so much a push to provide reparability but to point out the sometimes devious ways some manufacturers actively prevent people from attempting it.

Case in point is the pentalobe screws and the recent discovery that apple made one screw a tiny bit shorter than the others in one of their products so that if it didn't go back in the correct place the six or so other tiny bit longer screws would cut a pcb track on the board below.

To me there seems to be a world of difference between making things easier to repair and actively designing a product so that it cant

That (short screw) is the manufacturer protecting their margin so they can recover development cost and then some.  Forcing them to eliminate such would be reducing their means of protecting their profit.

- Is that reasonable?
- Since you just removed a mean for them to protect their margin, do we want to bear the increased cost?
- Is that fair for every buyer of iJunk pay an extra $10 just so 1% of the buyer can tinker and fix their iJunk?  (Probably less than 1%, just picking a number for the purpose of discussion.)
- Is it cost effect for everybody as a whole?

[AlfBaz]

That (short screw) is the manufacturer protecting their margin so they can recover development cost and then some.  Forcing them to eliminate such would be reducing their means of protecting their profit.

Quarterly Net profit for the end of September last year, $8.5 billion
Yes I can see how that short screw protected that

[miguelvp]

Add to that the repair shops that make a living repairing those broken iDevices, probably not in the billions but they do make a living out of it.

There is an ecosystem that comes out based on need by the consumers that are not fulfilled by the manufacturer.

[SkyMaster]

To me there seems to be a world of difference between making things easier to repair and actively designing a product so that it cant

Not providing documentation and/or spare parts, at any cost, fall under the category of "actively designing a product so that it cannot be repaired".

Corporations do not provide documentation, and do not provide spare parts, solely to increase their profit margin (supporting the spare parts supply chain is less profitable then simply selling complete systems)

A few weeks ago there was a reportage on TV about a guy you had bought a 8,000 $ refrigerator for his house kitchen (yeah, some kind of top of the line refrigerator). A few years later (out of warranty), the refrigerator broke down; a circuit board was defective. But there is no replacement part available, at any cost. The refrigerator's manufacturer said that the circuit board was not repairable.

The only solution was to scrap the refrigerator and buy a new one.

And another piece of "energy star" compliant product ends up in a landfill.

In Canada, the Law says that spare parts have to be made available, by the manufacturer, to the end users for a reasonable period of time after a product is sold. Unfortunately, the duration of the "reasonable period of time" is not defined anywhere.

[mazurov]

Dunno about laws but some things are actually easier to fix these days. I replaced a battery in my Nexus 5 yesterday -> https://plus.google.com/+OlegMazurov/posts/BurS4XqEa2z  , took ~US$10 in parts plus 15 minutes of my time. No soldering necessary, the (OEM) battery comes with Hirose-ish connector.

It's a pity that replacing a battery requires opening the hood but this is the cost of miniaturization. I remember back in the days when people were wearing wrist watches every watch repair shop offered battery replacement service for a small fee.

FWIW, the service manual for Nexus 5 is also available online.

[samnmax]

FWIW, the service manual for Nexus 5 is also available online.

Yes, but that was leaked, LG didn't publish it.

[free_electron]

point of sale eWaste tax on consumer products, to cover the cost of collection and

why does this always have to be a tax burden on the consumer ? impose the burden on the manufacturer !  Manufacturer x wants to sell a non-repairable product : whack 100% tax on it. They will quickly change strategy as nobody will buy their stuff.

besides , i don't know of any product sold that is forbidden to repair , so why do we need a law ? Repairing is a combination of three things
- time ( money )
- skill
- parts

the only problem can be parts. many things use custom made parts. if you can't get those : tough luck. you can't force manufacturers to make those available for sale. same with components going obsolete. you can't force a chip manufacturer to keep producing a certain component solely for the repair market. that is not livable.

[jobog]

My biggest complaint with today's products is not being able to take them apart without destroying something.  Cases glued together, special fasteners, short screws.  I would like to be able to fix items I own but I don't think there will ever again be a time when you can make a living repairing electronics for other people.  A good part of the blame for this is today's consumer.  People will not wait for a day let alone a week for something to be repaired.  Your cell phone breaks, what do you do, you go immediately to the store for a replacement.  Your flat screen quits working, you'll be at the the store and hauling home a new one before the wife and kids can start howling.  Instant gratification is here to stay.

Anyone remember Sam's Photofacts? 

[JuKu]

"Right to Repair" is to force the corporations to make documentation and spare parts available, to the end users.

It is really surprising that some persons are against this concept.

You can't do that without removing intellectual property protection. Dead concept.

[retrolefty]

why does this always have to be a tax burden on the consumer ? impose the burden on the manufacturer !  Manufacturer x wants to sell a non-repairable product : whack 100% tax on it. They will quickly change strategy as nobody will buy their stuff.

 Simplistic thinking. Companies really don't pay 'special taxes' like this, as they just pass the burden on to their consumers in the form of higher prices. As long as any new 'tax law' applies equally to all companies in the same market then it's the consumer paying all the costs of a given product or service.

 I believe the continuous decreasing in the prices of electronic 'raw' components and automation processes over the decades is what has turned consumer devices like TVs and cell phones into the disposable rather then repairable category.

[miguelvp]

I believe the continuous decreasing in the prices of electronic 'raw' components and automation processes over the decades is what has turned consumer devices like TVs and cell phones into the disposable rather then repairable category.

I don't buy that, at least in Chicago or any city I've been at in the US, there are plenty of shops that will repair TVs and cell phones. So if people considered them disposable is because they are looking for an excuse to get the latest device.

Right to repair won't hurt those shops either because not only are consumer electronics already easy to repair, but your average Joe is not going to attempt to do it themselves and if they want it repaired they will take it to a shop anyways.

[Mr Simpleton]

Guess the carmakers are breaking the way
http://wqad.com/2015/04/22/automakers-push-for-law-making-home-repairs-illegal/

And then it is only a matter of time, when other producers realise how much more money there is to be had....

[SkyMaster]

"Right to Repair" is to force the corporations to make documentation and spare parts available, to the end users.

It is really surprising that some persons are against this concept.

You can't do that without removing intellectual property protection. Dead concept.

Where were you during the '70s, '80s, '90s? Schematics and/or Maintenance Manual was available for almost every electronic devices.

jobog mentioned Sam's Photofacts. Sam's Photofacts was covering almost all consumer products.

Intellectual property is about being the owner of the "design". Intellectual property does not prevent a design to be documented. Intellectual property is not the same as some kind of "trade secret".

[mtdoc]

Where were you during the '70s, '80s, '90s? Schematics and/or Maintenance Manual was available for almost every electronic devices.

I suppose it was the Chinese cloners who put an end to that. It's too bad.

[SkyMaster]

Where were you during the '70s, '80s, '90s? Schematics and/or Maintenance Manual was available for almost every electronic devices.

I suppose it was the Chinese cloners who put an end to that. It's too bad.

This may really well be part of the problem.

But then, the manufacturers have moved most of their production to China, which make it very easy for the Chinese to copy whatever they want 

[gildasd]

Repairability is a big part of my buying decision making.

I don't know what % of the population does this, but don't think I'm alone.

The higher the cost of the product, the more important for me.
I usually check for Ifixit tear-downs or simply if there are screws on the back.
Having a kid around the house teaches you real fast the value of being able to fix stuff!

And so far, in electrical stuff, 90% was really simple (worn out connector, bad solder that breaks, bad caps, bad power supply) and only 10 was "non instant fix" (IC's going awol) that need a new sub assembly or a complete replacement.

My latest fix was cleaning the contacts and motor of a hoover, 150€ saved.
Today, I'm going to buy a waterproof Camcorder with my wife.
I'll be looking closely at the possibility of being able to change out the battery and if the power cord cord/USB/Card is proprietary.
If it's goofy non standard stuff that's going to aggravate me later, or make me drag a suitcase of cables on vacation, they can shove it up their corporate sphincter.

It must be able to work with the same charger as my Iphone, Canon Camera, wife's Nokia, Garmin GPS...
And be fixable, once the battery starts acting on me in a couple of years.