General > General Technical Chat
Right To Repair For Non-Technical People.
Brumby:
--- Quote from: SiliconWizard on July 21, 2021, 05:10:16 pm ---I think you're going on a loop with this. Must be tickling something.
--- End quote ---
I might be looping - but my aim is to separate what Right To Repair is and what it is not.
Brumby:
--- Quote from: SiliconWizard on July 21, 2021, 05:10:16 pm ---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.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---
Right To Repair does not require a manufacturer to design a product that way. This is a false argument. It is entirely irrelevant to the fundamental of Right To Repair.
Where pressure may come in this direction, is from the market. Once consumers are awakened to the possibility of repair, then it will become a market advantage for a manufacturer to do as you have indicated. This will be an emerging follow-on effect.
This is another example of why I'm chiming in so much. There are so many arguments being tossed around that are not core issues in the pursuit of Right To Repair. They are secondary, incidental, subsequent or, in some cases, irrelevant altogether.
For example: All the noise about privacy, security and consumer protection have ZERO place in Right To Repair legislation. They are covered in other legislation and to even think of putting anything into Right To Repair legislation is inappropriate ... and legally dangerous.
Red Squirrel:
The car analogies are good to use. But it even works with phones. Tell them that if they were to drop their phone and the screen cracks, they have no choice but to buy a whole new phone because it is illegal for a 3rd party to fix it, and the vendor that sold you the phone (ex Apple or Google) is not willing to fix it or is going to charge you a ridiculous price. With right to repair it allows 3rd party repair shops to be allowed to fix stuff.
Can also say that it's better for the environment as things get fixed instead of thrown out.
Psi:
At its core R2R is simply 3rd party repair shops saying...
"We will take on the task of figuring out exactly how to disassemble and repair devices. However parts, schematics and any tools needed to make replacement parts re-sync must all be purchasable at a fair price"
Fixed_Until_Broken:
--- Quote from: Brumby on July 23, 2021, 12:24:45 pm ---I might be looping - but my aim is to separate what Right To Repair is and what it is not.
--- End quote ---
I think you are making a really good point. We fall off-topic just like I mentioned in the other thread going right now. It is important for people to help steer the topic back on topic. The discussion should really be about what right to repair is not what some of us may wish it to be about. That only stirs up confusion and I will take personal note of that to help keep myself on the topic in future discussions/ videos.
What is funny is no one has been on the topic at all of this thread. The questions were about talking to non-technical people. how to get the masses interested is what I am going for here.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version