Author Topic: Right to repair, my problem with it  (Read 26018 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline TerraHertz

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3958
  • Country: au
  • Why shouldn't we question everything?
    • It's not really a Blog
Re: Right to repair, my problem with it
« Reply #100 on: July 22, 2021, 12:53:10 pm »
Progress towards victory.


I take a much more extreme view. That the root of the problem is planned obsolescence. Unrepairable devices are just a symptom of the mentality (and resulting economic structures) that material goods should only last a relatively short time, then be replaced. Whether for 'style churn' or because they broke and can't be fixed. This has to stop.  It is a much more important issue than delusional crusades like 'carbon net zero' and so on.

A couple of specific things I'd like to see:
* Tech and scientific instrumentation manufacturers once again providing full service manuals (including theory of operation, schematics, service and calibration proceedures) with every instrument they sell. Required to, by law. As good as the old Tek and HP manuals.

* Such service information should be built into the actual equipment, in electronic form, accessible via a standard interface. Digital memory is cheap and uses insignificant amounts of materials. And in this case it should use permanent memory, not any stored-charge chip that is going to fade to garbage in 10 or 20 years.
Collecting old scopes, logic analyzers, and unfinished projects. http://everist.org
 
The following users thanked this post: Fixed_Until_Broken

Offline langwadt

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4857
  • Country: dk
Re: Right to repair, my problem with it
« Reply #101 on: July 22, 2021, 04:10:29 pm »
when people mention "planned obsolescence" it is mostly nonsense. If people replace stuff every couple of years because they want something new, there is absolutely no reason to spend money and effort on making it last 20 years. All you accomplish is being more expensive and not selling anything
 

Offline TimFox

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9000
  • Country: us
  • Retired, now restoring antique test equipment
Re: Right to repair, my problem with it
« Reply #102 on: July 22, 2021, 04:31:10 pm »
“Planned obsolescence” was a strategy adopted by the American car-making oligopoly after the War.  By 1955, the average length of car ownership had fallen to two years from five years in 1934, as reported by GM. 
 

Offline bdunham7

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8175
  • Country: us
Re: Right to repair, my problem with it
« Reply #103 on: July 22, 2021, 05:23:03 pm »
“Planned obsolescence” was a strategy adopted by the American car-making oligopoly after the War.  By 1955, the average length of car ownership had fallen to two years from five years in 1934, as reported by GM.

Average length of new car ownership, perhaps?  Those 2-year old cars weren't scrapped and their trade-in value was a major driver of sales.  There's a difference between obsolescence caused by the introduction of new and better products versus that caused by cheap, unsupported crap breaking in ways that can't be fixed. 

As for what constitutes 'obsolete', it depends on the product.  Often high-quality products that lasts longer also perform better, such as appliances and cars.  My 'old' cars are comfortable and reliable and I can live without bluetooth or navigation.  My old garage fridge can't browse the web or text me when my milk has expired, but it cools and freezes very efficiently.  I'd be very unhappy if I had to scrap either over the unavailability of some small part.  OTOH, hardly anyone wants their old bag or brick phone back.
A 3.5 digit 4.5 digit 5 digit 5.5 digit 6.5 digit 7.5 digit DMM is good enough for most people.
 

Offline TimFox

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9000
  • Country: us
  • Retired, now restoring antique test equipment
Re: Right to repair, my problem with it
« Reply #104 on: July 22, 2021, 05:37:11 pm »
Exactly.  GM wanted each consumer to purchase a new car every two years so they could produce new cars accordingly.  Eventually, the used cars purchased by later owners would be recycled at scrap yards as the money continued to flow.  GM’s share of the money was mainly at the sale of new cars.
 

Offline langwadt

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4857
  • Country: dk
Re: Right to repair, my problem with it
« Reply #105 on: July 22, 2021, 05:58:54 pm »
Exactly.  GM wanted each consumer to purchase a new car every two years so they could produce new cars accordingly.  Eventually, the used cars purchased by later owners would be recycled at scrap yards as the money continued to flow.  GM’s share of the money was mainly at the sale of new cars.

of consumers wanted a new, better, bigger, faster, etc. every couple of years and manufacturers were happy to oblige   
 

Offline langwadt

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4857
  • Country: dk
Re: Right to repair, my problem with it
« Reply #106 on: July 22, 2021, 06:00:25 pm »
“Planned obsolescence” was a strategy adopted by the American car-making oligopoly after the War.  By 1955, the average length of car ownership had fallen to two years from five years in 1934, as reported by GM.

Average length of new car ownership, perhaps?  Those 2-year old cars weren't scrapped and their trade-in value was a major driver of sales.  There's a difference between obsolescence caused by the introduction of new and better products versus that caused by cheap, unsupported crap breaking in ways that can't be fixed. 

As for what constitutes 'obsolete', it depends on the product.  Often high-quality products that lasts longer also perform better, such as appliances and cars.  My 'old' cars are comfortable and reliable and I can live without bluetooth or navigation.  My old garage fridge can't browse the web or text me when my milk has expired, but it cools and freezes very efficiently.  I'd be very unhappy if I had to scrap either over the unavailability of some small part.  OTOH, hardly anyone wants their old bag or brick phone back.

but then a new car is substantially safer and a new fridge uses less power
 

Offline TimFox

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9000
  • Country: us
  • Retired, now restoring antique test equipment
Re: Right to repair, my problem with it
« Reply #107 on: July 22, 2021, 07:35:05 pm »
Back in the 1950s, next year’s car had bigger tail fins.
J K Galbraith, my favorite economist of the 1960s, pointed out that the lack of price competition between the major US manufacturers was not as bad as it sounds, since they competed instead by technical improvements, by which we made progress.
 

Offline Fixed_Until_Broken

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 100
  • Country: us
Re: Right to repair, my problem with it
« Reply #108 on: July 22, 2021, 08:52:43 pm »
Don't boot me for spam but I made a funny one today. I just was reading this thread and was like you know what guns don't have this problem.
« Last Edit: July 22, 2021, 08:54:53 pm by Fixed_Until_Broken »
 

Offline bdunham7

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8175
  • Country: us
Re: Right to repair, my problem with it
« Reply #109 on: July 22, 2021, 09:44:17 pm »
but then a new car is substantially safer and a new fridge uses less power

Not necessarily and not significantly in the cases of my car and fridge.  Progress is these areas, like many others, is 'lumpy' and some products are way out ahead of others--it isn't a smooth continuous improvement unless you are looking at aggregate statistics.  If you compared the most safe car from a decade or so ago with the most safe one(s) from today, there might be some improvement.  If you compare the most safe cars from a decade or so with the average today, you would not see any improvement, quite the opposite.

Modern fridges are a different story.  If you move up to an inverter drive, that I would concede is a significant improvement.  If not, you are likely just buying some extra insulation and cheaper, lighter heat exchange components for a 10-20% improvement.  If my fridge was a decade older, or hadn't been a higher-end model at the time, the numbers would all be different as it would be a power hog.

In any case, IMO both products are still well worth keeping, using and if need be, repairing--within reason. 
A 3.5 digit 4.5 digit 5 digit 5.5 digit 6.5 digit 7.5 digit DMM is good enough for most people.
 
The following users thanked this post: filssavi

Offline Fixed_Until_Broken

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 100
  • Country: us
Re: Right to repair, my problem with it
« Reply #110 on: July 22, 2021, 09:56:10 pm »

Not necessarily and not significantly in the cases of my car and fridge.  Progress is these areas, like many others, is 'lumpy' and some products are way out ahead of others--it isn't a smooth continuous improvement unless you are looking at aggregate statistics.

Not only that but tieing back to consumer electronics and such. The lack of repair is anti-competitive. Basically, your consumer product manufacture knows your device is likely to fail with X number of years so they plan their product cycles around this.
This is stunting innovation. They don't really have to bring anything special to the table with each cycle. Just make sure your next product is slightly better and is ready to release just in time to keep the consumer. They don't have to compete with last model because its not getting fixed and its old news.
 

Offline CatalinaWOW

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5569
  • Country: us
Re: Right to repair, my problem with it
« Reply #111 on: July 22, 2021, 10:09:49 pm »
One of the things that amazes me in this discussion is the confidence that the OEM produced a completely harmless device and the fear that any repair will destroy that harmlessness.  Neither side of this argument is that black and white.

EMI/EMC certification for example.  Anyone who has actually been involved in production will find it totally unbelievable that an entire manufacturing run of just about anything has been completed without an ECO (engineering change order), TCO (test change order) or PCO (planning change order).  Different organizations have different nomenclature for these, but one controls the physical configuration (layout, parts list etc), one controls the test methods and requirements and the third documents assembly techniques.  And a great many of these are done without a re-certification.  The wise heads of the organization make a decision that the changes are benign, that the resulting product is substantially the same.  Even when those wise heads are totally unaffected by the economic consequences of their decisions there is risk of change creep where a series of changes (each actually inconsequential in their own right) leads to a cumulative effect which is serious.

Trust in inspections is another example.  As reported by others vehicle inspections in the United States vary widely.  Actual safety inspections are somewhat uncommon today, though they were more widespread several decades ago.  When emission control equipment started coming into cars and definitely required inspection to keep the air clean many states dropped safety inspections to keep the annual costs of vehicle inspections relatively low.  Even when safety inspections were required they were fairly cursory in the states where I experienced them.  Fluid levels were checked, belts were inspected, glazing was checked for cracks, brake shoes/pads were checked, tire pressure and tread depth were checked.  In some cases front suspensions received a check for looseness.  Finally all lights and signals were verified for operation and aim (for some reason it was more important back then to not blind opposing traffic with improperly aimed headlights).  Any number of dangerous defects could go undetected in this inspection, although conscientious mechanics also checked for things like failing U-joints, motor mounts, shock absorbers, spring mounts and any number of other potential danger spots.

Anyway, the world where the OPs stated concerns are real issues is a different world than I have experienced.  Several others on the thread seem to live in my world, and have given several examples.  While I can't say that the OP's concerns are totally wrong or baseless, I lose no sleep over them.
 
The following users thanked this post: Wolfram

Offline HobGoblyn

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 573
  • Country: gb
Re: Right to repair, my problem with it
« Reply #112 on: July 22, 2021, 10:21:24 pm »
when people mention "planned obsolescence" it is mostly nonsense. If people replace stuff every couple of years because they want something new, there is absolutely no reason to spend money and effort on making it last 20 years. All you accomplish is being more expensive and not selling anything

I suppose it depends how we look at things.

A washing machine bought 30 odd years ago was serviceable by most competent mechanically minded people.

They also lasted (well good brands) years.

Many new washing machines fail within 3 years, and very often if you call out a service guy, they tell you it’s beyond economic repair, if it’s under warranty and say the drum bearings have gone, again they won’t repair and will replace the whole machine.

Often the machines are designed now so that it’s almost impossible to just say replace the bearings, you would have to replace the whole drum etc.

I would say that

A) this has been done to make manufacturing as cheap as possible

B) this has been done so that due to how they are now designed it’s usually cheaper to buy a new one hence more sales.

C) it’s been done because the last thing a company wants is for their products to be easily repairable, if they have people keeping their machine for 10 years plus, no new sales.

We are criticised for living in a throw away society with land fills bursting at the seems, lectured on how much harm this is causing the environment, but companies seem to be going out of their way to make things as difficult as possible to be repaired.

Mind you, I remember Korg in 1987, I had a vintage Korg synth (Korg Trident mk2) that had a fault. I had taken it into work as we had very good electronic engineers with all the gear, and they offered to look at it for me for a drink.

They wanted to know what a certain chip was and if schematics were available.  I had bought it second hand, didn’t have any spare cash at that time to pay Korg to look at it.

I phoned Korg uk, they refused to tell me what the chip was or let me have a copy of the schematic, their argument was that if my engineer colleagues fixed it, it was doing Korg out of a paid repair job, the fact I couldn’t pay their price was irrelevant.

Ended up giving the synth to a friend as it only made a single noise, they go for around 4000 to 6000 euros now lol

« Last Edit: July 22, 2021, 10:23:04 pm by HobGoblyn »
 

Offline Psi

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10385
  • Country: nz
Re: Right to repair, my problem with it
« Reply #113 on: July 23, 2021, 03:40:24 am »
I take a much more extreme view. That the root of the problem is planned obsolescence.

Amen to that.

Root cause of problem identified.
Greek letter 'Psi' (not Pounds per Square Inch)
 

Offline bdunham7

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8175
  • Country: us
Re: Right to repair, my problem with it
« Reply #114 on: July 23, 2021, 03:53:15 am »
A) this has been done to make manufacturing as cheap as possible

B) this has been done so that due to how they are now designed it’s usually cheaper to buy a new one hence more sales.

C) it’s been done because the last thing a company wants is for their products to be easily repairable, if they have people keeping their machine for 10 years plus, no new sales.

A) Then why are they (washing machines, etc) so damn expensive?
B+C) If a company sells me a washing machine that fails in 3 years and can't be repaired, they sure aren't going to sell me another one, ever!

Quote
I phoned Korg uk, they refused to tell me what the chip was or let me have a copy of the schematic, their argument was that if my engineer colleagues fixed it, it was doing Korg out of a paid repair job, the fact I couldn’t pay their price was irrelevant.

That is the R2R cause in a nutshell--the attitude that buying the product gives them the right to future revenue from it.  I got the same attitude from an equipment dealer once--they seemed to believe that because I was in their 'territory' that they had been granted by the OEM, they had an exclusive right to extract revenue from me anytime the equipment needed anything.  When they found out I had simply bought the parts elsewhere and fixed it myself, they actually had the nerve to visit me, screaming about how I was violating their agreement (that I wasn't party to, of course) with the OEM.  If a particular company is the only game in town--if you just have to have a Korg for example, then you pay the price.  Otherwise they need to be told to just f*&^ off.
A 3.5 digit 4.5 digit 5 digit 5.5 digit 6.5 digit 7.5 digit DMM is good enough for most people.
 

Offline langwadt

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4857
  • Country: dk
Re: Right to repair, my problem with it
« Reply #115 on: July 23, 2021, 06:40:03 am »
A) this has been done to make manufacturing as cheap as possible

B) this has been done so that due to how they are now designed it’s usually cheaper to buy a new one hence more sales.

C) it’s been done because the last thing a company wants is for their products to be easily repairable, if they have people keeping their machine for 10 years plus, no new sales.

A) Then why are they (washing machines, etc) so damn expensive?
B+C) If a company sells me a washing machine that fails in 3 years and can't be repaired, they sure aren't going to sell me another one, ever!



A) are they really expensive, or do you just think they are?
B+C) but you believe they are expensive so you are not going buy the even more expensive one, so you will get one build to that price

 

Offline G7PSK

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3889
  • Country: gb
  • It is hot until proved not.
Re: Right to repair, my problem with it
« Reply #116 on: July 23, 2021, 07:14:20 am »

Not necessarily and not significantly in the cases of my car and fridge.  Progress is these areas, like many others, is 'lumpy' and some products are way out ahead of others--it isn't a smooth continuous improvement unless you are looking at aggregate statistics.

Not only that but tieing back to consumer electronics and such. The lack of repair is anti-competitive. Basically, your consumer product manufacture knows your device is likely to fail with X number of years so they plan their product cycles around this.
This is stunting innovation. They don't really have to bring anything special to the table with each cycle. Just make sure your next product is slightly better and is ready to release just in time to keep the consumer. They don't have to compete with last model because its not getting fixed and its old news.
You mean more flashing lights especialy over driven blue led's guarranteed to drive you nuts and burn out in six months by which time you dont notice due to the gaffer tape stuck over them.
 

Offline G7PSK

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3889
  • Country: gb
  • It is hot until proved not.
Re: Right to repair, my problem with it
« Reply #117 on: July 23, 2021, 07:34:27 am »
A) this has been done to make manufacturing as cheap as possible

B) this has been done so that due to how they are now designed it’s usually cheaper to buy a new one hence more sales.

C) it’s been done because the last thing a company wants is for their products to be easily repairable, if they have people keeping their machine for 10 years plus, no new sales.

A) Then why are they (washing machines, etc) so damn expensive?
B+C) If a company sells me a washing machine that fails in 3 years and can't be repaired, they sure aren't going to sell me another one, ever!

Quote
In real terms a washing machine is cheaper than ever back in the 50's a washing machine cost two or more months wages now they are less than a weeks average wage. The same goes for things like TV's and radios.
There is another factor in non serviceability and that is miniaturization of electronics years ago you did not need a microscope etc to carry out a repair components were large enough to handle with fingers, now they are so small that it is hard to see some of them with the naked eye so repairs take longer and require greater manipulative skills. I started working life as a watchmaker and people understood back then in the early 70's that such skills were not cheap and it took time to make repairs on such small components, it is the labor costs that drive companies like apple to just bin phones when under warranty and try to sell a new one when the warranty runs out.
The main criticism I have for phones is sealed in batteries after all a battery is a wear item and should be easily replaced.
 

Offline Psi

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10385
  • Country: nz
Re: Right to repair, my problem with it
« Reply #118 on: July 23, 2021, 09:45:55 am »
If a company sells me a washing machine that fails in 3 years and can't be repaired, they sure aren't going to sell me another one, ever!

Yeah, for us engineers this is true, but for the general public it isn't.

The general public will keep buying it
Greek letter 'Psi' (not Pounds per Square Inch)
 

Offline Brumby

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 12413
  • Country: au
Re: Right to repair, my problem with it
« Reply #119 on: July 23, 2021, 11:21:17 am »
when people mention "planned obsolescence" it is mostly nonsense.
It is real and well known - but that is not the point of Right To Repair.

Quote
If people replace stuff every couple of years because they want something new, there is absolutely no reason to spend money and effort on making it last 20 years. All you accomplish is being more expensive and not selling anything
Again, this is not the point of Right To Repair.

The core principle of Right To Repair is to stop manufacturers deliberately taking steps that get in the way of making repairs.

It is not, absolutely not, about forcing them to make things more repairable.  It is NOT about getting them to revert to outdated processes.

Modern manufacturing processes which result in products that are more difficult to repair is not an issue!  If a BGA chip is bung, then a repairer might require a BGA rework station - which is fine.  The product manufacturer instructing a chip manufacturer to NOT supply it to anyone but them is one of the problems that Right To Repair is addressing.  If anyone wants to complain about Intellectual Property rights, then I have 3 things to say:
  1. Those championing Right To Repair are not interested in the way the chip works - they just want a chip to replace the one that doesn't work.
  2. Put a $20 licence fee on the $5 chip if you need to, but make it available!
  3. If the IP rights holder of a chip is really worried about someone copying the silicon, then the chips are already out in the wild - in the very products that are sold.


In the discussion about Right To Repair, PLEASE make sure you are raising points that are relevant to that specific topic.

Certainly, there are many other aspects which are closely related - and they will take on a life of their own - but these are incidental to the core of Right To Repair and not part of it.
 
The following users thanked this post: Bassman59, ealex, Cubdriver, Fixed_Until_Broken

Offline Fixed_Until_Broken

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 100
  • Country: us
Re: Right to repair, my problem with it
« Reply #120 on: July 23, 2021, 04:39:11 pm »
The core principle of Right To Repair is to stop manufacturers deliberately taking steps that get in the way of making repairs.

It is not, absolutely not, about forcing them to make things more repairable.  It is NOT about getting them to revert to outdated processes.
I think you are making a really good point here.
The problem we are having here is we all enjoy a little intellectual conversation. The core principles of the right to repair are so easy to agree with that you easily wander off-topic. I am guilty of such.
It is also easy to get sucked into the traps of arguing about points that are completely irrelevant since they leave huge logic gaps in the irrelevant talking points.

Such as:
- Consumers are too stupid to want it fixed. OK, that's not the point they still should have the right. Fun to argue but irrelevant.
- Manufactures are the only people who can handle EMI testing. Ok, but repair is exempt for the most part(oversimplification), and the number of repairs is a very small number. Again not on topic to what RTR is about. RTR stands for Right to repair not a requirement to repair correctly.
- Planned obsolescence. That's on them and has nothing to do with fixing it. Got it. Fair point. Not really RTR just an easy motivation to get behind it. I am very guilty of getting sucked into this one all the time.

The list could go on.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2021, 04:40:52 pm by Fixed_Until_Broken »
 

Offline rstofer

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9963
  • Country: us
Re: Right to repair, my problem with it
« Reply #121 on: July 23, 2021, 05:24:00 pm »
Looks like everybody will get their wish!  The FTC has decided to weigh in on this topic.  They won't actually help the situation but it should be fun to watch.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/22/tech/ftc-right-to-repair/index.html

Quote
The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

~ Ronald Reagan
« Last Edit: July 23, 2021, 05:30:25 pm by rstofer »
 

Offline robint91Topic starter

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 44
Re: Right to repair, my problem with it
« Reply #122 on: July 23, 2021, 06:10:30 pm »
- Manufactures are the only people who can handle EMI testing. Ok, but repair is exempt for the most part(oversimplification), and the number of repairs is a very small number.

Let's take this outside RTR.

Shouldn't we EMI test or some other safety test, just to see that the repaired product is back into conformity to FCC/UL/... rules? Or any reason why that test isn't needed?

So if RTR will pass, more repairs will be done, and thus more problem cases could arise. I would say, better safe that sorry and test.

I think there should be legislation for independent repair shops that requires them validate conformity for each repaired product. So when there is customer <-> repairer relation. AKA money flows between to two parties.
I see the following two cases for independent repair shops when the do a repair,
A) They do the testing and validate conformity on their own. They can prove that everything is okay with the measurement results
B) They get a waiver(document) from the original manufacturer for that particular repair

Isn't this something we need to think about?
 

Offline bdunham7

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8175
  • Country: us
Re: Right to repair, my problem with it
« Reply #123 on: July 23, 2021, 06:41:51 pm »
Isn't this something we need to think about?

No, as a general requirement, it's ludicrous for reasons that have already been explained thoroughly in this thread.

In specific instances some testing might be appropriate.  For example, when repairing microwave ovens, you should have (not sure of regulations here) a microwave EM field detector, a.k.a. microwave leakage tester.  Other well-developed and regulated repair industries have their own well-considered policies.  Validation of 'conformity' with the original certifications is generally not the rule, and for many such 'conformities' testing would be impractical--such as destructive testing or very expensive procedures that are only done on one or two examples of an entire production batch.

It's nice to wave big words and concepts around, but how about some concrete examples of post-repair testing that you think is necessary?
« Last Edit: July 23, 2021, 06:43:37 pm by bdunham7 »
A 3.5 digit 4.5 digit 5 digit 5.5 digit 6.5 digit 7.5 digit DMM is good enough for most people.
 

Offline dave j

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 140
  • Country: gb
Re: Right to repair, my problem with it
« Reply #124 on: July 23, 2021, 06:55:53 pm »
- Manufactures are the only people who can handle EMI testing. Ok, but repair is exempt for the most part(oversimplification), and the number of repairs is a very small number.

Let's take this outside RTR.

Shouldn't we EMI test or some other safety test, just to see that the repaired product is back into conformity to FCC/UL/... rules? Or any reason why that test isn't needed?

So if RTR will pass, more repairs will be done, and thus more problem cases could arise. I would say, better safe that sorry and test.

I think there should be legislation for independent repair shops that requires them validate conformity for each repaired product. So when there is customer <-> repairer relation. AKA money flows between to two parties.
I see the following two cases for independent repair shops when the do a repair,
A) They do the testing and validate conformity on their own. They can prove that everything is okay with the measurement results
B) They get a waiver(document) from the original manufacturer for that particular repair

Isn't this something we need to think about?

Do manufacturers (and any authorised repair agents they may have) currently have to perform such testing on repaired products? If not, why impose it on others.

Someone might currently have to bodge a fix using different components, which might arguably require such testing, because the manufacturer doesn't make the originals available/known. RTR should solve that ensuring people can get the originals.
I'm not David L Jones. Apparently I actually do have to point this out.
 
The following users thanked this post: Just_another_Dave


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf