Author Topic: Right to repair, my problem with it  (Read 26031 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online bdunham7

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8175
  • Country: us
Re: Right to repair, my problem with it
« Reply #50 on: July 18, 2021, 10:19:34 pm »
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.

I'm not sure what you are advocating.  Are you saying that anyone who repairs any device should submit the repaired unit for full certification testing of every standard that the original item was required to meet?  So that if I replace the bumper on your car, I have to perform the full suite of destructive crash tests? 

Or are you saying the repair should be done in a manner that reasonably ensures conformity with the original standards, with limited testing appropriate to the situation?  After all, as I believe you pointed out, the original manufacturer's conformity testing is done on a sample, then uniform manufacturing practices ensure conformity of the entire production batch.  The car company crashes one car to test the bumper, then assumes the rest will work similarly.  The same would apply to repairs, would it not?   If I replace your bumper with a proper part and install it in conformity with the manufacturers procedure, it should be good?  Same-quality replacement parts and proper procedures, right? 

What better way is there to achieve that then to mandate the availability of those parts and procedures?  Your top post shows what you seem to think is an awful bodge (although it likely is good enough for any reasonable purpose) but ignores the fact that the availability of that part would have allowed for a nice, neat and completely compliant repair.  I'm not necessarily arguing that Apple should be required to supply that part if they don't replace it themselves in their repair shops, but I think its pretty clear that withholding OEM parts is going to create a market for questionable quality repairs.

Quote
That is or should be the law.

I don't know where you are, but here that is not the law nor is it likely to become the law.  Laws requiring inspections of furnaces, cars, etc. are very unpopular and seen, IMO mostly correctly, as supports for trade unions and business interests.  People don't like being regulated, but they don't mind regulation of others....

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: Cubdriver

Offline Mr. Scram

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9821
  • Country: 00
  • Display aficionado
Re: Right to repair, my problem with it
« Reply #51 on: July 18, 2021, 10:19:57 pm »
And the repair shop will screw up the installation and claim that the replacement part is defective.  You can see that coming a mile away!

In terms of electronic gadgets, I view R2R as the "Louis Rossman Enrichment Act".  I don't see any practical way to make it work that protects the manufacturers from substandard work.  The manufacturers will need to add a cost to every device to cover the inevitable poor repair jobs and I don't want to pay for it.  It's probably better for the manufacturers to assume they are going to need to replace 'x'% of all devices sold and just embed the cost.  Do a full replacement and call it a day.

In effect, they already do this for the first year so all we need to do is decide how long a full warranty should last.  Three years?  Twenty years?  It's just money!
Is this a problem in the car industry? Why do you think electronics will be different? Why are you against free market competition? Why do issues keep being invented?
 

Offline rstofer

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9963
  • Country: us
Re: Right to repair, my problem with it
« Reply #52 on: July 18, 2021, 10:20:41 pm »
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.

They may be resisting it but John Deere parts are all over the Internet.  I could even find complete engines with about 5 clicks.  They're not cheap but they're available.

Caterpillar parts are also readily available.  From dealers or direct from the factory.  There are also after-market parts available.

Google has links...
 

Online TimFox

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9000
  • Country: us
  • Retired, now restoring antique test equipment
Re: Right to repair, my problem with it
« Reply #53 on: July 18, 2021, 10:26:43 pm »
New John Deere equipment is as infested with software, IP, diagnostics, and chips as is other modern stuff.
John Deere enthusiasts restore the ancient ones, with one-cylinder engines.
 
The following users thanked this post: Brumby, Mr. Scram

Offline Mr. Scram

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9821
  • Country: 00
  • Display aficionado
Re: Right to repair, my problem with it
« Reply #54 on: July 18, 2021, 10:27:18 pm »
They may be resisting it but John Deere parts are all over the Internet.  I could even find complete engines with about 5 clicks.  They're not cheap but they're available.

Caterpillar parts are also readily available.  From dealers or direct from the factory.  There are also after-market parts available.

Google has links...
The problem is getting the equipment to run after installing these parts. Even swapping out an arm rest can lead to the software locking the owner out. Every purebred American should shiver at the thought of the free market being impeded by one party.
 
The following users thanked this post: Brumby

Offline rstofer

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9963
  • Country: us
Re: Right to repair, my problem with it
« Reply #55 on: July 18, 2021, 10:38:54 pm »
And the repair shop will screw up the installation and claim that the replacement part is defective.  You can see that coming a mile away!

In terms of electronic gadgets, I view R2R as the "Louis Rossman Enrichment Act".  I don't see any practical way to make it work that protects the manufacturers from substandard work.  The manufacturers will need to add a cost to every device to cover the inevitable poor repair jobs and I don't want to pay for it.  It's probably better for the manufacturers to assume they are going to need to replace 'x'% of all devices sold and just embed the cost.  Do a full replacement and call it a day.

In effect, they already do this for the first year so all we need to do is decide how long a full warranty should last.  Three years?  Twenty years?  It's just money!
Is this a problem in the car industry? Why do you think electronics will be different? Why are you against free market competition? Why do issues keep being invented?

Free market doesn't mean giving away the company store.  Brand X builds a widget.  Some customers buy it because they find it useful.  They know going in what the repair status will be if they do the least bit of searching.  Caveat Emptor!  And you certainly wouldn't buy another brand 'X' after the last brand 'X' failed!

The car industry is a little different.  It's pretty easy to replace an alternator with a 9/16" combination wrench.  The owner can buy factory parts or rebuilt parts or, in some cases, after-market parts.  It's not so easy to deal with BGA packages.  Who has X-Ray equipment to verify that the BGA has been properly soldered?  I know!  Blame it on a defective replacement part!

So the manufacturer should provide a troubleshooting chart for potential problems as a function of each improperly soldered ball?  All 500 of them?  Timing diagrams?  I remember the TV schematics we used to buy when I was a kid.  Back in the late '50s and early '60s.  Then came color, then came PCBs and there went component level repair.

At the factory, it's easy.  The PCB either passes final inspection or it is scrap.  The cost of rework is simply too high.  Clearly, the manufacturing process is designed to minimize scrap.  I still wouldn't expect 100% yield.

The day isn't going to come where the consumer can repair their own modern electronic devices.  There may be a few talented technicians here and there but we only see their success stories.  How many devices are still dead after 'repair'?  How many are deader than they were coming in?

 

Offline Fixed_Until_Broken

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 100
  • Country: us
Re: Right to repair, my problem with it
« Reply #56 on: July 18, 2021, 10:45:58 pm »
They may be resisting it but John Deere parts are all over the Internet.  I could even find complete engines with about 5 clicks.  They're not cheap but they're available.
Caterpillar parts are also readily available.  From dealers or direct from the factory.  There are also after-market parts available.
Google has links...
Sensors are serialized. I can buy the part all I want but it won't work without calling up JD, Make an appointment, Hire 18 wheeler to haul the tractor to the dealership, Have them plug in the scan tool and clear the code.
Edit: all this while the crops die because the tractor is out of service and the farm goes belly up from a failed harvest.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2021, 10:47:42 pm by Fixed_Until_Broken »
 

Offline Mr. Scram

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9821
  • Country: 00
  • Display aficionado
Re: Right to repair, my problem with it
« Reply #57 on: July 18, 2021, 10:49:56 pm »
Free market doesn't mean giving away the company store.  Brand X builds a widget.  Some customers buy it because they find it useful.  They know going in what the repair status will be if they do the least bit of searching.  Caveat Emptor!  And you certainly wouldn't buy another brand 'X' after the last brand 'X' failed!

The car industry is a little different.  It's pretty easy to replace an alternator with a 9/16" combination wrench.  The owner can buy factory parts or rebuilt parts or, in some cases, after-market parts.  It's not so easy to deal with BGA packages.  Who has X-Ray equipment to verify that the BGA has been properly soldered?  I know!  Blame it on a defective replacement part!

So the manufacturer should provide a troubleshooting chart for potential problems as a function of each improperly soldered ball?  All 500 of them?  Timing diagrams?  I remember the TV schematics we used to buy when I was a kid.  Back in the late '50s and early '60s.  Then came color, then came PCBs and there went component level repair.

At the factory, it's easy.  The PCB either passes final inspection or it is scrap.  The cost of rework is simply too high.  Clearly, the manufacturing process is designed to minimize scrap.  I still wouldn't expect 100% yield.

The day isn't going to come where the consumer can repair their own modern electronic devices.  There may be a few talented technicians here and there but we only see their success stories.  How many devices are still dead after 'repair'?  How many are deader than they were coming in?
Highly safety sensitive cars are easy but a random part in a random bit of non critical hardware is beyond the capabilities of the free market? It doesn't really add up, does it? The car repair industry is a proper free market. Vendor lock in is an anti capitalist scam. I have seen PCBs being repaired in factories, though I can't say how common that is.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2021, 10:52:10 pm by Mr. Scram »
 

Offline pqass

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 945
  • Country: ca
Re: Right to repair, my problem with it
« Reply #58 on: July 18, 2021, 11:16:07 pm »
Quote
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...

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.


I am able to ask any licensed gas furnace installer/repair tech to fix my furnace.  They are able to buy individual parts and replace them. I'm not forced to buy a new furnace when it breaks and is out of warranty.  I've spent more on a single computer then the last furnace I purchased.    My insurance company won't invalidate my policy because someone repaired it.

Quote


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.


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.



My argument was that I suspect Intersil is colluding with Apple to make a part unavailable to third parties so that end-users don't have the opportunity to economically repair common failures in the products they buy.  This has a direct advantage to Apple's income.

If Apple had to spin their own wafers for everything (ie. keep all IP in-house)  they'd think twice about what's really important.  Apple shouldn't compel Intersil from selling Intersil IP (through dishonest, non-competitive contracts) to anyone else just because a part is used in an Apple product.  Non-compete contracts should NOT be enforcable just like employment contracts CAN'T prohibit you from working for a competitor [in some jurisdictions].   Even Apple can't afford to spin a wafer or take everything in-house for every part they use so don't worry about your future contracts.

Basically, if someone skilled in the arts of board-level repair (like a licensed/experienced mechanic) can properly replace a part, then those parts should be made available either through an OEM or the 1st party. Any repair risk is assumed by the owner unless the repair was half-assed which he should take up with the repair tech's employer.

As for serializing parts to the larger board, the 1st party should be compled to facilitate that (for a price) since the device is out-of-warranty anyway and the repair is being directed by the owner of the device.  Failure to facilitate could be seen as being anti-competitive with 1st party's latest products.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2021, 11:44:07 pm by pqass »
 

Offline T3sl4co1l

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 22436
  • Country: us
  • Expert, Analog Electronics, PCB Layout, EMC
    • Seven Transistor Labs
Re: Right to repair, my problem with it
« Reply #59 on: July 19, 2021, 01:45:06 am »
And the repair shop will screw up the installation and claim that the replacement part is defective.  You can see that coming a mile away!

In terms of electronic gadgets, I view R2R as the "Louis Rossman Enrichment Act".  ...

Wow...

I used to respect you, but this?

Tim
Seven Transistor Labs, LLC
Electronic design, from concept to prototype.
Bringing a project to life?  Send me a message!
 
The following users thanked this post: Psi, langwadt, Gregg, old-jo

Offline rsjsouza

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6106
  • Country: us
  • Eternally curious
    • Vbe - vídeo blog eletrônico
Re: Right to repair, my problem with it
« Reply #60 on: July 19, 2021, 02:41:03 am »
I also don't grasp the resistance here. To add to the set of examples, you can take the appliance repair market in the US (and perhaps other countries): several websites sell parts and have service manuals free to be downloaded so the repair can be done by the owner. If one is not technically inclined to do so, a completely independent third party repair company can perform the service for you.

Besides, the original post is talking about cellphones and laptops, not ECG, dosage delivery devices, ABS, etc. Sure, LiIon batteries could be a problem for this class of devices, but there is an entire aftermarket of such products (with a wide variety of quality levels) that still allow a user or a repair shop to replace it - if it weren't for repair shops and spare part availability, the only solution would be to simply throw the entire device away. The liability for a faulty battery would be an exception and it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect it would have to be treated case by case (I just bought yet another battery replacement for one of my laptops - not original as the machine is already ten years old)

Also, both my cars were plagued with the infamous Takata airbag - the manufacturer performed the repair themselves and I expect full liability in case it needs to be deployed. A similar story for many other systems on the car that are equally critical for safety: they are checked and repaired by a third party shop and, in case something goes wrong, it would be an exception and handled case by case.

(edit: clarity)
« Last Edit: July 19, 2021, 10:26:11 am by rsjsouza »
Vbe - vídeo blog eletrônico http://videos.vbeletronico.com

Oh, the "whys" of the datasheets... The information is there not to be an axiomatic truth, but instead each speck of data must be slowly inhaled while carefully performing a deep search inside oneself to find the true metaphysical sense...
 

Online bdunham7

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8175
  • Country: us
Re: Right to repair, my problem with it
« Reply #61 on: July 19, 2021, 04:23:51 am »
My argument was that I suspect Intersil is colluding with Apple to make a part unavailable to third parties so that end-users don't have the opportunity to economically repair common failures in the products they buy.  This has a direct advantage to Apple's income.

Colluding, conspiring and cooperating all mean about the same thing, but the first two seem 'bad'.  If I contract with a company to make a specific product for me only, they have a contractual obligation to not sell copies to anyone else and probably an NDA that prohibits them from revealing any information about it.  R2R is not the right to easily reverse engineer.  Any obligation to supply repair parts would be the responsibility of whoever sells to the consumer market, not the contract manufacturer.  What you are missing about IP is in what I wrote earlier.  If Apple has that chip customized in any way--even relabeled--and they take the appropriate steps to keep the chip and how they use it as a trade secret, that is a legitimate form of IP.  Their rights don't have to attach solely to the chip itself.  How far they can extend this and what rights companies can keep are determined partly by how badly they abuse them.  Think ink and toner, Keurig coffee, things like that. 
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 robint91Topic starter

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 44
Re: Right to repair, my problem with it
« Reply #62 on: July 19, 2021, 06:02:30 am »

I'm not sure what you are advocating.  Are you saying that anyone who repairs any device should submit the repaired unit for full certification testing of every standard that the original item was required to meet?  So that if I replace the bumper on your car, I have to perform the full suite of destructive crash tests? 

Or are you saying the repair should be done in a manner that reasonably ensures conformity with the original standards, with limited testing appropriate to the situation?  After all, as I believe you pointed out, the original manufacturer's conformity testing is done on a sample, then uniform manufacturing practices ensure conformity of the entire production batch.  The car company crashes one car to test the bumper, then assumes the rest will work similarly.  The same would apply to repairs, would it not?   If I replace your bumper with a proper part and install it in conformity with the manufacturers procedure, it should be good?  Same-quality replacement parts and proper procedures, right? 

What better way is there to achieve that then to mandate the availability of those parts and procedures?  Your top post shows what you seem to think is an awful bodge (although it likely is good enough for any reasonable purpose) but ignores the fact that the availability of that part would have allowed for a nice, neat and completely compliant repair.  I'm not necessarily arguing that Apple should be required to supply that part if they don't replace it themselves in their repair shops, but I think its pretty clear that withholding OEM parts is going to create a market for questionable quality repairs.

My reasoning behind this is just to find out who is liable for the repair and they can proof if a problem arises in the repaired product that the fault doesn't come from that intervention. Say you replaced a battery charger chip inside a laptop and at first glance everything is fine. After a while stresses caused by the repair influence the circuit (for example a bad connection on an WLCSP) and the battery heats up and explodes. How are you going to defend yourself to all possible claims? Now think that this happens on a plane...

If you touched it, you are liable for it. Is that what we actually want? Because this will be a side effect of this legislation, the liability will be transferred from manufacturer to the repair people. I don't know if I want to have that.

Quote
I don't know where you are, but here that is not the law nor is it likely to become the law.  Laws requiring inspections of furnaces, cars, etc. are very unpopular and seen, IMO mostly correctly, as supports for trade unions and business interests.  People don't like being regulated, but they don't mind regulation of others....

How are you sure that your house wouldn't blow up, due to failing equipment without regular inspection. Do you trust yourself in checking those things? Do you have enough knowledge to interpret the results of such check up?

We have so much technology now, that it is almost impossible to be able to fix everything yourself according to appropriate standards.

 

Offline pqass

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 945
  • Country: ca
Re: Right to repair, my problem with it
« Reply #63 on: July 19, 2021, 06:07:38 am »
My argument was that I suspect Intersil is colluding with Apple to make a part unavailable to third parties so that end-users don't have the opportunity to economically repair common failures in the products they buy.  This has a direct advantage to Apple's income.

Colluding, conspiring and cooperating all mean about the same thing, but the first two seem 'bad'.  If I contract with a company to make a specific product for me only, they have a contractual obligation to not sell copies to anyone else and probably an NDA that prohibits them from revealing any information about it.  R2R is not the right to easily reverse engineer.  Any obligation to supply repair parts would be the responsibility of whoever sells to the consumer market, not the contract manufacturer.  What you are missing about IP is in what I wrote earlier.  If Apple has that chip customized in any way--even relabeled--and they take the appropriate steps to keep the chip and how they use it as a trade secret, that is a legitimate form of IP.  Their rights don't have to attach solely to the chip itself.  How far they can extend this and what rights companies can keep are determined partly by how badly they abuse them.  Think ink and toner, Keurig coffee, things like that.

Wrapping a trade secret in a contract doesn't make it legal. If its deemed anti-competitive, it's void and both parties will have legal trouble.

R2R is partly about access to the same components that sellers put in their products. I wasn't saying anything about reverse engineering. The scheme is to make every component appear to be one-of-kind so the only option offered to an end-user is to replace whole boards at 85% the product cost.  And they use contracts to bind suppliers from selling re-labelled chips that are supplier-designed minor customizations.

Right now if you accidentally drop your new purchase or it breaks outside its meager one year warranty, you're at the mercy of the sellers service offering. He can tell you to get stuffed and buy another one.  In a just world, consumer protection law should compel product seller to supply parts for 1yr for every $200 spent on electronics (spend $1K = 5yrs parts support).  It is not acceptable to sell the last product and have no means fix it.
« Last Edit: July 19, 2021, 06:18:33 am by pqass »
 

Offline robint91Topic starter

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 44
Re: Right to repair, my problem with it
« Reply #64 on: July 19, 2021, 06:29:11 am »
Wrapping a trade secret in a contract doesn't make it legal. If its deemed anti-competitive, it's void and both parties will have legal trouble.

R2R is partly about access to the same components that sellers put in their products. It's not about reverse engineering anything. The scheme is to make every component appear to be one-of-kind so the only option offered to an end-user is to replace whole boards at 85% the product cost.  And they use contracts to bind suppliers from selling re-labelled chips that are supplier-designed minor customizations.

There is nothing illegal on what Apple and Intersil or other manufacturers are doing. You can have still access to other battery charging chips. They are not limiting access to that technology, they are not pushing other battery charging chips off the market. It is just that Intersil doesn't have the right to sell that customized part to other clients. Making this kind of deal illegal, is opening a can of worms for other small businesses and design houses.

Right to repair is for me that you have the right to demand a repair for a product after the warranty ends from a manufacturer. But that repair isn't free and should be accordantly priced.

Quote
Right now if you accidentally drop your new purchase or it breaks outside its meager one year warranty, you're at the mercy of the sellers service offering. He can tell you to get stuffed and buy another one.  In a just world, consumer protection law should compel product seller to supply parts for 1yr for every $200 spent on electronics (spend $1K = 5yrs parts support).  It is not acceptable to sell the last product and have no means fix it.

Warranty doesn't cover that. Warranty is only for manufacturing defects. If you drop your laptop at day 2, you have created the problem, not the manufacturer. If the manufacturer doesn't want to repair it, it is their full right to do so. It is not that you made a mistake that the manufacturer needs to invest time and money into it, to fix the problem that you created.
 

Online wraper

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 17952
  • Country: lv
Re: Right to repair, my problem with it
« Reply #65 on: July 19, 2021, 09:21:49 am »
There is nothing illegal on what Apple and Intersil or other manufacturers are doing. You can have still access to other battery charging chips. They are not limiting access to that technology, they are not pushing other battery charging chips off the market. It is just that Intersil doesn't have the right to sell that customized part to other clients. Making this kind of deal illegal, is opening a can of worms for other small businesses and design houses.
You are spreading FUD. Show any right to repair law proposal that says Intersil must sell a custom Apple chip to 3rd parties? They say that Apple must sell it to 3rd parties.
 

Offline Psi

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10385
  • Country: nz
Re: Right to repair, my problem with it
« Reply #66 on: July 19, 2021, 10:28:59 am »
I'm 100% for right to repair,
But I agree there are some issues to be ironed out with regard to right to repair and how it interacts with other laws.

I suspect the EMC cert issue will be solved by exception. Where devices repaired in good faith do not need to be re-certified or held to the same standard as they were when manufactured.
It is true that this *may* cause a small percentage of repaired products to be outside the legal limits, but i think the best approach is to do nothing and wait and see if this is actually a problem before applying any laws. I'm a firm believer that laws should be applied when a real problem exist not when people suspect a problem may occur.

For the issue of obtaining custom ICs/parts I think it helps to think about why these parts are contractually blocked from sale to the public.
It's not because the company spent millions on development and wants to recover costs. because the chip could be sold publicly at a higher price to bring in essentially free money.
You can argue the main reason for keeping the chip internal-only is to get a financial or market advantage by preventing their competitors from using the chip.  But this advantage could be negated by a high public chip cost. And if that's not enough, public supply of the chips could be sold in non-SMT formats to prevent SMT placement. Repair shops just want the chip and don't care if they get a bag full of loose chips.
(well, maybe they would prefer the IC legs arrived un-bent, but you get my point)

Another issue is the price of parts. A right to repair law does little good if it requires manufacturers make parts available but the manufacturer chooses to price them insanely high to prevent anyone using them. So some legislation maybe required here.
I think a fair max price could be set by scaling up the part price in BOM to reflect its percentage of the retail price plus some extra amount to account for shipping/handling/warehouse stocking etc..


I think any Right to Repair law should leave the method of making parts available for purchase up to each device manufacturer to decide since different methods work better for different items.
It does not matter for repair how the parts are supplied, all that matters is that the parts are available for purchase at a fair price and without any form of manufacturer imposed registration or legal roadblocks.

- The manufacturer could supply parts themselves to part-wholesaler companies for redistribution, this option is good for chips that need programming where the manufacturer may not want to release the binary. They can simply sell the chips pre-programmed.

- The manufacturer could allow digikey/mouser etc to sell the custom chip, perhaps with restrictions, higher price different packaging format, order qty limit etc..

« Last Edit: July 19, 2021, 10:35:30 am by Psi »
Greek letter 'Psi' (not Pounds per Square Inch)
 

Offline rsjsouza

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6106
  • Country: us
  • Eternally curious
    • Vbe - vídeo blog eletrônico
Re: Right to repair, my problem with it
« Reply #67 on: July 19, 2021, 10:32:07 am »
Wrapping a trade secret in a contract doesn't make it legal. If its deemed anti-competitive, it's void and both parties will have legal trouble.

R2R is partly about access to the same components that sellers put in their products. It's not about reverse engineering anything. The scheme is to make every component appear to be one-of-kind so the only option offered to an end-user is to replace whole boards at 85% the product cost.  And they use contracts to bind suppliers from selling re-labelled chips that are supplier-designed minor customizations.

There is nothing illegal on what Apple and Intersil or other manufacturers are doing. You can have still access to other battery charging chips. They are not limiting access to that technology, they are not pushing other battery charging chips off the market. It is just that Intersil doesn't have the right to sell that customized part to other clients. Making this kind of deal illegal, is opening a can of worms for other small businesses and design houses.
Except that they are artificially making those other battery charging chips completely incompatible with the original equipment - just look at the inkjet printing market: the manufacturers work day and night to choke the third party business. This has become abusive with the extreme integration of very powerful microcontrollers in very tiny packages.
Vbe - vídeo blog eletrônico http://videos.vbeletronico.com

Oh, the "whys" of the datasheets... The information is there not to be an axiomatic truth, but instead each speck of data must be slowly inhaled while carefully performing a deep search inside oneself to find the true metaphysical sense...
 

Offline Psi

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10385
  • Country: nz
Re: Right to repair, my problem with it
« Reply #68 on: July 19, 2021, 10:39:34 am »
Yeah, there are some serious question to be asked as to why Apple made that charging chip custom in the first place. It would not surprise me if the only reason was to block repair. They have done lots of stuff to block repair in other ways so a custom chip I would not put past them.
I've seen people mentioning that the chip in question is identical to an available version except for using a different i2c address. No idea if it's true.
« Last Edit: July 19, 2021, 10:42:43 am by Psi »
Greek letter 'Psi' (not Pounds per Square Inch)
 

Offline m98

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 634
  • Country: de
Re: Right to repair, my problem with it
« Reply #69 on: July 19, 2021, 11:39:50 am »
Somehow, all of those anti-right-to-repair shills remind me of one small business owner in the US I once called to get a relatively old device's firmware because I had to replace the micro. He told me: "Fuck off, this is MY PROPERTY, I keep ALL THE CODE in a USB-Drive tucked in my underpants!!!".

Uhm, cultural differences, I guess. :-//
 

Offline pqass

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 945
  • Country: ca
Re: Right to repair, my problem with it
« Reply #70 on: July 19, 2021, 12:23:58 pm »
Wrapping a trade secret in a contract doesn't make it legal. If its deemed anti-competitive, it's void and both parties will have legal trouble.

R2R is partly about access to the same components that sellers put in their products. It's not about reverse engineering anything. The scheme is to make every component appear to be one-of-kind so the only option offered to an end-user is to replace whole boards at 85% the product cost.  And they use contracts to bind suppliers from selling re-labelled chips that are supplier-designed minor customizations.

There is nothing illegal on what Apple and Intersil or other manufacturers are doing. You can have still access to other battery charging chips. They are not limiting access to that technology, they are not pushing other battery charging chips off the market. It is just that Intersil doesn't have the right to sell that customized part to other clients. Making this kind of deal illegal, is opening a can of worms for other small businesses and design houses.

Right to repair is for me that you have the right to demand a repair for a product after the warranty ends from a manufacturer. But that repair isn't free and should be accordantly priced.

Other chips don't work in the product I bought. They ARE limiting where I can buy the chip that I need to get my device working again. I don't care who sells me the chip. The complaint is that I can't buy it for any money from anyone today.   They are gatekeeping (through relabeling, they are controlling access to a chip currently available for purchase) and should be as illegal as other unsavoury schemes to limit consumer choices.

No one is demanding a free repair.  As a consumer, I just don't want the product seller to impede my ability to fix my own device by whoever I choose.  I have never been forced to put Ford-branded tires on my truck. I can buy OEM tires from many retailers.  I'm sure when Apple offers an iCar for sale they'll spec square rims (with rounded corners, of course).

Quote
Quote
Right now if you accidentally drop your new purchase or it breaks outside its meager one year warranty, you're at the mercy of the sellers service offering. He can tell you to get stuffed and buy another one.  In a just world, consumer protection law should compel product seller to supply parts for 1yr for every $200 spent on electronics (spend $1K = 5yrs parts support).  It is not acceptable to sell the last product and have no means fix it.

Warranty doesn't cover that. Warranty is only for manufacturing defects. If you drop your laptop at day 2, you have created the problem, not the manufacturer. If the manufacturer doesn't want to repair it, it is their full right to do so. It is not that you made a mistake that the manufacturer needs to invest time and money into it, to fix the problem that you created.

I didn't say it should.  Yes it may be my fault. Or, it could be 1 day after the meager warranty period. 
The only recourse should not be to chuck the whole thing in the bin over a $5 part and $75 labour.
« Last Edit: July 19, 2021, 12:38:57 pm by pqass »
 
The following users thanked this post: wraper

Offline vk6zgo

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7855
  • Country: au
Re: Right to repair, my problem with it
« Reply #71 on: July 19, 2021, 01:09:42 pm »
Farmers should band togther to develop open agricultural machinery platforms and agricultural automation platforms in different sizes and types,standardize parts for it.


Lets help solve real peoples problems affordably and help Feed the people of the world an save family farms from foreclosure in this era of climate change with open robots.

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.

Farmer's associations should sue companies who don't allow third party repair of agricultural equipment, on the basis of loss of production, & hence, income.
 

Offline G7PSK

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3889
  • Country: gb
  • It is hot until proved not.
Re: Right to repair, my problem with it
« Reply #72 on: July 19, 2021, 01:41:52 pm »
New John Deere equipment is as infested with software, IP, diagnostics, and chips as is other modern stuff.
John Deere enthusiasts restore the ancient ones, with one-cylinder engines.

John Deere claim that farmers no longer own the tractor/equipment sold to them they only have a license to use said equipment due to the amount of proprietary software on the systems and say that you can only have the equipment serviced by an authorised dealer anything else revokes the license for use, I  am waiting to see if they make that stick in court.
The government here is talking about a right to repair law, mostly aimed at things like white goods as most are now unserviceable and spares are not available so if a fridge or washing machine etc breaks it has to be replaced with a new one. To my mind the ability to get spares for equipment is a no brainer and I try to avoid purchasing anything where spares will not be available three years down the road.
 

Offline rstofer

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9963
  • Country: us
Re: Right to repair, my problem with it
« Reply #73 on: July 19, 2021, 01:51:47 pm »
Right now if you accidentally drop your new purchase or it breaks outside its meager one year warranty, you're at the mercy of the sellers service offering. He can tell you to get stuffed and buy another one.

Warranty doesn't cover that. Warranty is only for manufacturing defects. If you drop your laptop at day 2, you have created the problem, not the manufacturer. If the manufacturer doesn't want to repair it, it is their full right to do so. It is not that you made a mistake that the manufacturer needs to invest time and money into it, to fix the problem that you created.

There are insurance policies that do cover drops and other non-warranty issues.  They also cost money.

I suspect there are a lot of people who hope for the day when they break their obsolete cell phone and have an excuse to upgrade to the latest and greatest.

We just buy the insurance for a couple of years and then, after the newness wears off, we drop the policy and wait for a reason to upgrade.

Low dollar cell phones aren't economically repairable even if the parts are free.  Labor to repair costs more than a new device.  Given that my low dollar cell phone does everything any other cell phone does, it's got to be ego that drives people to high dollar cell phones.  They can afford to replace the phone when it breaks.

Now I'm supposed to buy an iPhone Pro and one of the high end Apple watches.  I guess the total cost is just a little under $1700 or thereabouts.  Not going to happen!  I hate cell phones and my 4 year old $150 version is just fine.

Everybody seems unhappy with Apple.  Specifically...  Why do they buy iPhones in the first place?  They are overpriced and unrepairable.  Why not just buy the low dollar unrepairable phone?

Here's a $120 refurbished Samsung Galaxy
https://www.amazon.com/Samsung-J327V-Eclipse-Verizon-black/dp/B07455VT9F

Here's a $1000 iPhone
https://www.amazon.com/Apple-Carrier-Subscription-Cricket-Wireless/dp/B084GS884W

They both make phone calls and can send/receive text messages.  I think ego gets in the way!
 

Offline pqass

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 945
  • Country: ca
Re: Right to repair, my problem with it
« Reply #74 on: July 19, 2021, 02:39:01 pm »
Insurance only pays for a replacement; it values your data at $0.  With Apple, if it doesn't boot, you're SOL WRT your data.  All the more to push people into the cloud, right?

Most people are ignorant and get themselves into situations. I'm not in favour of gov't bubble-wrapping.  But the network effects of large players f*ks up everyone's choices even those that are trying to avoid them (me).   How long before there's no more headphone jack on your next phone? 

Just make the parts available based on the value of the product sold; low value product = short after-warranty parts availability.
That's fair.
« Last Edit: July 19, 2021, 02:42:52 pm by pqass »
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf