General > General Technical Chat

Right To Repair For Non-Technical People.

<< < (6/7) > >>

SiliconWizard:

--- Quote from: Brumby on July 21, 2021, 02:24:32 am ---
--- 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.
--- End quote ---

I think you're going on a loop with this. Must be tickling something.

At least try and read what people say. Take all points and ponder. As I mentioned, even if a given manufacturer doesn't take any particular step to help repairability, they'll still need to make some documentation, firmware, possibly firmware programming software and tools, etc, available. This has a cost. If you think just releasing technical documentation fit for external use has no cost for a company, you probably have never been involved with this in any. I think you wouldn't believe how "not fit for external consumption" most internal docs and tools are in the average company, even the big ones. That was for the direct costs.

But then I also mentioned indirect costs. I said that part of the price of current products is subsidized by their relatively short lifetime. This is obvious. If you think prices wouldn't change if customers ended up buying fewer new products, you probably live in a fantasy world.

Now if you think this would have no impact on this at all because, statistically, very few customers would actually have their products repaired, then it's a fair point, but you're missing the big picture. Do you think both companies and governments will bother for addressing just a marginal percentage of products and consumers in the end?

And I don't get why you would get all worked up with this. As I said, I'm all for this. I'm just being realistic. I just do know for it to have any real impact, it would have consequences. Such as price increase. And I for one am perfectly ready to pay more for a product that I can repair. I have zero problem with this as long as it doesn't, OTOH, becomes a way to milk the cow.


--- Quote from: Brumby on July 21, 2021, 02:24:32 am ---
--- 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?
--- End quote ---

It's absolutely zero challenge. A huge number of things are almost impossible to repair. Any use of custom parts - if said custom parts are not available to buy, or not anymore - any use of specific processes. If there's a chip on board (COB), try replacing it. Even something as mundane as underfilling BGAs. Try *successfully* reworking a BGAs with underfill (fortunately - or not, for reliability reasons - most products out there don't use underfilling on BGAs, but that's not something particulary bizarre either.) There are so many examples.

I'm sorry, but designing a product to give anyone a fair chance of repairing - even if not excessively going out of your way- it usually takes effort. It's absolutely not a given.


--- Quote from: Brumby on July 21, 2021, 02:24:32 am ---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.

--- End quote ---

I get it that people pushing the right to repair absolutely do not want related issues to be mixed in. I'm just saying that yes, conformity of repaired products is a legal mess, and this will have to be addressed sooner or later, and is unfortunately likely to hinder the right to repair in some way. So I understand that you'd want that to be ignored for as long as possible. But, if a significant fraction of sold products eventually become repaired, the question will inevitably be raised. It's all a matter of being under the radar or not...

I'm again all for a right to repair, preferrably one that is applicable and realistic. I must say I'm a bit surprised by the reactions this topic seem to trigger, making discussing it difficult unless you just blindly promote it. I wasn't expecting this. This is interesting.

bdunham7:

--- Quote from: SiliconWizard on July 21, 2021, 05:10:16 pm --- I'm just saying that yes, conformity of repaired products is a legal mess, and this will have to be addressed sooner or later, and is unfortunately likely to hinder the right to repair in some way. So I understand that you'd want that to be ignored for as long as possible. But, if a significant fraction of sold products eventually become repaired, the question will inevitably be raised. It's all a matter of being under the radar or not...

--- End quote ---

The issue of 'conformity' of repaired products is not a legal mess nor is it a new subject.  Just look at the automotive industry for many good examples.  Moving on to anything that can be efficiently disassembled and reassembled, what is so different about a repair tech doing the assembly vs a production line employee?  In neither case is there always conformity testing of the specific units--the conformity is often dependent on correct assembly.  Where further testing is deemed necessary for every unit--say hi-pot, calibration or the like--then the repair process can and should include those.

Right to repair and your 'conformity' concerns are not antagonistic concepts.  Yes, if you give some idiot the secret key to the calibration menu, they may make a mess.  But in general, having access to correct information and parts leads to better repair results, not worse.  And allowing more people to participate results in better repair availability and outcomes because the OEM often doesn't have the perfect repair strategies and parts stocks in place when they release the product.  Later, if an issue crops up, those repair procedures, and often the parts supplies, are then developed according to need.  If the OEM doesn't want to step up and do that, then R2R may give the aftermarket a chance to do so.  And even fairly drastic steps like requiring a certain level of technical uniformity (OBD II for automotive, e.g.) has not increased the cost of products--it more likely has reduced them.

KE5FX:

--- Quote from: SiliconWizard on July 21, 2021, 05:10:16 pm ---I'm again all for a right to repair, preferrably one that is applicable and realistic. I must say I'm a bit surprised by the reactions this topic seem to trigger, making discussing it difficult unless you just blindly promote it. I wasn't expecting this. This is interesting.

--- End quote ---

The thing is, even the most productive engineer in the world buys a hundred products for every one he or she creates.  Once you grasp this truth, you can see how it's in everyone's interest, including ours, to keep the proprietary-rights pendulum from swinging any farther in the manufacturers' favor.

cdev:
Here in the US electronics manufacturers have been lamenting the alleged low profit margins for years, and its clear that some are really trying hard to take their old products off the market, so people dont repair them, they want them to buy new Basically their incomes are getting squeezed as their customers incomes are getting squeezed. I think this is predictable and also poetic justice. So we need a right to repair or they will just make it worse and worse. I remember when back in the day some machines like copiers ere sold with a built in counter that disabled them after a certain number of copies. This is planned obsolescence. And it should be illegal.

Brumby:

--- Quote from: SiliconWizard on July 21, 2021, 05:10:16 pm ---At least try and read what people say. Take all points and ponder.
--- End quote ---
... and pay attention to what you, yourself have written...


--- Quote ---As I mentioned, even if a given manufacturer doesn't take any particular step to help repairability, they'll still need to make some documentation, firmware, possibly firmware programming software and tools, etc, available. This has a cost.

--- End quote ---
That is not the focus of what you did say - at least I don't think so.

However, I ask - just how much is this cost impact to a manufacturer?  More importantly - what is the ultimate impact on the consumer?  This is what truly matters.  As everyone should know, the customer always pays for everything - and, if they have to add in an extra couple of dollars when they buy something that will have a chance of being repaired, then I think that will be an easy sell.  In fact, any half-decent marketing group would run that up the flagpole and see how many salute!

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod