General > General Technical Chat
Right To Repair For Non-Technical People.
tooki:
--- Quote from: HobGoblyn on July 17, 2021, 11:57:10 pm ---There’s also many YouTube vids of people say going into Apple as their iPhones have broke, and they’ve got very sentimental photos etc on there and Apple saying that it’s beyond repair…., them sending it to one of the companies fighting for the right to repair, and those companies managing to retrieve all the user’s photos etc that Apple said they couldn’t do. If the likes of Apple had their way, these 3rd party companies wouldn’t exist, hence the many people that use them would have lost their photos etc for ever.
--- End quote ---
Just a minor niggle: it’s not that Apple couldn’t perform data recovery, it’s that it’s a service they choose not to offer in any way, shape, or form, instead referring customers to data recovery specialists. (Note that Apple, like many other hardware makers, has agreements with top-tier data recovery firms allowing them to work on the equipment without voiding the warranty, should it still be applicable.) When I worked at Apple, we were clear with customers who needed it that we did not perform data recovery of any kind, but we did refer customers to data recovery specialists. So to claim that Apple wants them dead is an outright lie. But this means real data recovery companies, not repair shops that offer rudimentary data recovery services. For truly important data, the latter are much too risky.
Commingling the issues of repair vs. data recovery (to which I will add that hardware-level data recovery should never, ever be considered a “repair”: you get it running to where you can recover the data, then you move it to a new device) is quite disingenuous.
When a company tells you an item is “beyond repair”, what is often meant is that it is beyond economical repair within their service framework. Sure, you could theoretically pay Apple to replace the screen, housing, battery, and boards in a busted-up iPhone, but it’d cost more than buying a new one. I can tell you from firsthand experience that one issue is also customers who hear what they want to hear, not what was actually said. So when an Apple employee tells them “we don’t offer this service”, some customers hear “we can’t do this service”, even though that’s not what was said. Another layer of confusion is that the stores can’t do everything, even if it’s something theoretically within the realm of the possible: an employee saying “we can’t do this” (meaning “we” the store and its employees ) could be perfectly true, whether it be due to policy, staffing, facilities, etc. Apple stores don’t have microsoldering equipment, so even if they wanted to, they very much are not capable of offering that service.
What this all boils down to is that I think every company has the right to decide what services they do and do not choose to offer, outside of legal obligations like warranty fulfillment. Apple (like every computer maker, I strongly suspect) chooses not to offer component-level repairs to customers. That indie shops choose to offer that service, and make it work for them financially, is fine and dandy, but it doesn’t make for a strong argument that Apple should be offering it, since there are many factors that play into that business decision (like the massively steeper training learning curve). Getting mad at Apple for not offering component-level repairs at their stores is kinda like getting mad at McDonald’s for not hand-making the ketchup daily at their stores: it’s damned hard to scale up, and it simply doesn’t fit their business model. Apple and McDonald’s may be on opposite ends of the luxury spectrum, but the scale at which they operate is broadly similar.
coppercone2:
apple does not want to pay skilled repair people, its not a technology or difficulty problem, its a financial problem.
who knows how profitable a repair department would be after operating for a few years. it might make money but less money then bricking things. its probobly discouraged
someone could have made a business decisions that says 'we wont even investigate repair efficiency and as a company we decided to keep it artificially low to foster profits'
this is possible with a budget
try doing fast repair if the company did not even try to get the engineers to generate a good repair/test flow chart. All you need to do is make a substandard and noncreative flow chart and the evaluation will say 'its not feasible to repair this within our budget'. Probably the easiest book to cook. Half of it can come down to someones refusal to add test points to critical locations of the PCB. I have personally seen people fighting against adding probe points. Try getting a bed of nails tester made. And gut feelings about 'glue and tape being better' without actually doing the legwork to do a proper comparison to looking at a modular construction. If you do the cost analysis the results may be surprising despite what the cost gurus shoot off the hip. If you follow half baked management advise all the time you will get a real stinker. Repair departments are kept in the fucking dark ages. Engineering will have a $2000 dollar regulated iron and repair will have a direct to plug in wall so they can solder a crimp back together when no one is looking lol
Brumby:
--- Quote from: SiliconWizard on July 17, 2021, 11:46:51 pm ---The problem is that the right to repair faces major obstacles: one is the price tag - products that are less or not repairable can be designed and manufactured for cheaper, and people are used to this.
--- End quote ---
This is an absolute load of garbage.
The CORE arguments of right to repair do NOT impinge on a manufacturer's right to build a device any way they want. Even the serialisation bullshit is manageable - if the ability to do the appropriate programming is available.
--- Quote --- ... and I guess many are actually glad their devices stop functioning after a couple years, so that gives them an opportunity to buy new ones.
--- End quote ---
That's a societal acclimatisation to planned obsolescence - the manufacturers are winning. This might be OK for people who can afford it, but not everyone can.
--- Quote from: SiliconWizard on July 20, 2021, 07:55:17 pm ---Well, as can be seen in the other thread as well, there are some misconceptions and misunderstandings... and in the end, IMHO, some misnaming as well, about the "right to repair" as it is currently defined.
--- End quote ---
There is also a LOT of bullshit and misdirection
--- Quote ---Apparently, the right to repair as currently defined, and as currently advocated by its proponents, wouldn't force companies to design their products to be more repairable. If I get it right, it's mostly about providing enough documentation, access to firmware, etc (and the associated right to use them for repair purposes).
--- End quote ---
Correct!
--- Quote --- But that poses unique liability and product conformity questions that I think are still unanswered. So the practicality of it all is still questionable.
--- End quote ---
No, no, no, no, no. Right to repair legislation does not have to - and should not - address issues that are already covered by the existing regulations, practices and precedents.
--- Quote ---In particular, and related to what you said, there's a fine line (contrary to what some seem to say) between not actively making a device repairable, and actively making it impossible to repair.
--- End quote ---
"Impossible" to repair is a huge challenge. How many things do you know that are impossible to repair?
Certainly, things can be more difficult to repair, requiring higher end equipment - such as a BGA rework - but you can and do have repairers with that sort of equipment. Such things may be "impossible" for a numpty or a novice, but there is a wide spectrum of repair capabilities that CAN perform such high level repair work.
--- Quote ---It can be pretty subtle, and be certain that companies will take advantage of this subtlety without a second thought if that means lower cost and less effort in the end. If a company can justify using extremely specific parts and manufacturing processes for technical reasons (but then those hinder repairability), which is pretty easy these days with high tech gear, then you still wont be able to repair it, even if the company still gives you a service manual.
--- End quote ---
That is a call to be made by a repairer who knows their capabilities - as long as the manufacturer does not prevent them from accessing the parts and/or the tools to make a repair.
--- Quote ---As to access to spare parts and firmware, I'm not quite sure about the right to repair in other parts of the world, but in the EU, if I'm not mistaken, that means a company should give access to spare parts for a given product for a minimum of 10 years (not for all classes of products, though). Which is better than nothing. But after 10 years, it's back to square one.
--- End quote ---
The essence of right to repair does not insist on a manufacturer providing parts - just to NOT BLOCK ACCESS to parts. Let someone else carry the inventory, based on their assessment of the potential of doing so. Let the market dictate supply and demand.
--- Quote ---Don't get me wrong - contrary to what I've read in the other thread, I (and probably most people questioning it) am absolutely, completely and utterly NOT against the right to repair. On the contrary. I'm just questioning some points of its applicability, real benefits and the possible conformity questions that come with it. In other words, it's good, but not enough.
--- End quote ---
As I said above, there is no need to look at areas outside of the specific scope of right to repair. The FCC (in the US) and similar organisations around the world already have the power to deal with EMC issues; Consumer protection laws abound across the globe and a repairer's reputation will soon sort the cream from the sediment. Repairs are already being done and they are only as good as the skill and ingenuity of those working on those items - but it repairers get the right parts, right documentation and right tools, they will be able to do a better job!
--- Quote ---Note that it's not quite specific to the right to repair itself - which is still a step forward - and that some of those questions existed before without completely clear answers. So in particular, I think what is missing is a legal frame for repaired products. It's still pretty fuzzy IMHO. When you know FCC and CE requirements, for instance, it's not hard to understand what could differ between a product as made by the manufacturer, and a repaired product, especially if with non-original spare parts. But one may reply that this is not the "right to repair" concern.
--- End quote ---
It isn't.
--- Quote --- I wouldn't quite agree with this, but that would be a possible point. Just some thoughts though.
--- End quote ---
I understand your point - but it would be very dangerous to start including issues related to FCC, CE, Consumer Protection, etc. areas. Those areas already have legislation in place and to double up in a separate (even if related) piece of legislation risks everything from confusion to contradiction. That is a legal mess that even the legislators would know about and want to steer clear.
GlennSprigg:
'Brumby' had a SoapBox moment...
Only joking mate!!! 8)
Brumby:
You'll keep. ;D
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version