General > General Technical Chat
Right to repair, my problem with it
<< < (9/39) > >>
mariush:
Something very basic:

A manufacturer should keep a specific percentage of each component that's not easily available commercially as spare part inventory, for the expected duration of the device plus a reasonable amount of years.

For example, if a user expects a laptop to last 3 years until it's obsoleted by newer more powerful models, then the manufacturer should have a certain percentage of parts for 3 + 2 years = 5 years.
Also, keep making stock for each year until the laptop model is discontinued.  ex. the laptop starts being made in 2009, they give it a 3 year life, but they keep making it until 2015, they would need to stock parts every year from 2009 to 2015, and keep some amount of spare parts until 2020 (2015 +3 years expected life +2 years).

Let's take that custom Intersil chip that's not available as spare parts.

Force Apple to keep 5% of the amount used in a laptop model as spare inventory, and review this 5% each year ... meaning if only 1% of the chips were requested by service companies and people in the first year, then maybe for following year production only require 3% of total amount of chips used that year.

Allow Apple to sell these parts with a "reasonable" profit to service places and regular users, for example maximum 500% for chips that cost under 5$, maximum 200% for chips over $5, and reasonable shipping costs - if they bought the chip for 3$ they could still sell the chip for 9$ plus 5-20$ shipping.

The reasonable profit would also cover paying for the employees who print labels and ship packages and receive the faulty chips  back and make sure they don't just ship back some random chips to have their limits reset.

In order to prevent people from scalping these genuine spare part chips, restrict the amount and increase it as needed.

For example, a company like Louis Rossman's would have the start limit set to 10 chips, but a regular home user (private person) would be limited to 1 or 2 per week.

The company will have its limit reset to 10 or to a higher number only once they ship the faulty chips back to Apple. If they don't ship the chips back, then have their limit go down to 5, then to maximum 2 per week or something like that.

If a company can prove they service so many laptops a week that they deserve to order bigger batches than 10, then increase their limit.. they can prove it by shipping back the faulty chips. 

So a company like Louis' apple repair could order 10 chips, use 7 of them, ship the faulty chips to Apple and the next week they'll have their counter reset to 10, or to 7.

ataradov:
Significant part of the issue is also software tools, not just parts. There is no use for a new part, if it will not be authenticated by the rest of the system after the swap. And that's where manufacturer's rhetoric about security comes in full swing.

So basically this whole thing relies on manufactures playing ball and doing things in good faith. And most of them have shown unwillingness to do so. So unless there is strict enforcement, they will always find a way to screw you. And it is hard to enforce laws against Apple, there is no imaginable fine that would do any dent in their bank account. And if necessary, they will just buy the government.
Fixed_Until_Broken:

--- Quote from: ataradov on July 18, 2021, 09:28:59 pm ---and it is hard to enforce laws against Apple, there is no imaginable fine that would do any dent in their bank account. And if necessary, they will just buy the government.

--- End quote ---

As if apple has not already purchased a government. I seem to remember them buying off Ireland at one point in time.

Apple is not the only problem child, they are just in the public eye.

I am very pro-RTR IMO the main problem with The right to repair is that it's a big circle jerk of technical people and it doesn't make it to the masses. This issue plays a role in every single person's life. IF more everyday people talking about this I think lawmakers would have no other option than to act.
robint91:

--- Quote from: T3sl4co1l on July 18, 2021, 07:00:43 pm ---
How can repair people figure these things out, correctly, without instruction from the manufacturers?  It's a crap-shoot at worst, and best-practices at best.

If manufacturers responded to certain detailed questions about repair, the repairs could be done in a manufacturer-approved way.

...

--- End quote ---

So repair is all damage that isn't a manufacturing detect.

I see 2 options:

* The repair people have explicit authorization to repair manufactures A products. Manufacturer A checks the quality and is thus liable for the product conformity
* The repair people don't have explicit authorization to repair, they are liable for the product conformity and needs to be able to proof it
I have no problems with both options, but the consequence of both should be made clear to all.

My reasoning is that repair shops want a third option to shift the liability to the consumer. Which I fully oppose. If you do a repair on something, you see that it back to specifications and provide guarantee that it will make those.



--- Quote from: T3sl4co1l on July 18, 2021, 07:00:43 pm ---How can an auto repair guarantee that emissions control systems work as intended?

Well, there are means of testing this, but before these were available in the 90s, what did they do?  Well, they didn't do anything, they just replaced parts more or less to spec and that was that.  Best practices.  The same works here.

FCC...

--- End quote ---

Here, they must do testing and report it. Even for gas furnaces, they require a check up and maintenance by a licensed people here. Why can't I do that myself, with the instructions of the manufacturer. Purely because of liability.

If a product is used by everyday consumers it should every time it passes from technician to consumer when acquiring or repairing be fully inline with all the harmonized standards the device shipped with initially.

That is or should be the law. Deviating from that is unsavory business.



--- Quote from: pqass on July 18, 2021, 07:28:40 pm ---
I fail to understand what IP the contractor to Intersil might have in a battery charging chip that doesn't involve a new mask.  Binning? Blown fuses in an existing Intersil design?  Smells like collusion to me.  If Apple wants to keep it proprietary they should pay Intersil for the IP and use Apple design people to add their 2cents and contract TSMC to produce a few million.  Otherwise, it should be purchasable by anyone.


--- End quote ---

What is the difference, we don't got to TSMC because X doesn't want to sell us parts. That statement you make is a non argument. The deal is done, the contract is made, both parties are bound to it. Making a law that prevents this will impact a lot of contract stuff. Don't underestimate how much of the industry works with these kind of contracts.

The only thing you can legislate correctly is that manufacturer A can in its best effort try to repair their product for X years after the legal warranty period against manufacturing defects ends. I guess that all other legislation to further open this up, will have more negative side consequences.

TimFox:
A large group of non-electrical folk who are concerned about RTR is farmers, since large tractor manufacturers such as John Deere are resisting it.
Navigation
Message Index
Next page
Previous page
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...

Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod