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.
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.
... 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.
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.
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.
There is also a LOT of bullshit and misdirection
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).
Correct!
But that poses unique liability and product conformity questions that I think are still unanswered. So the practicality of it all is still questionable.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
It isn't.
I wouldn't quite agree with this, but that would be a possible point. Just some thoughts though.
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.