General > General Technical Chat
Right to Repair - UK and EU making changes to facilitate repairs :)
<< < (9/20) > >>
Fraser:
The ‘newer is better’ idea is an interesting concept when it comes to the world of electronics. There is little doubt that computing technology and associated processors advance at a pace over time, but moving away from that particular realm things can be different.

I remember watching a program that showed ‘behind the scenes’ of a vacuum cleaner manufacturer. There was a staff incentive program where if a member of staff made a suggestion for a production line change that saved money, they got a bonus. A lady on the production line commented that the casing had more screws than were truly needed to hold it together. Each screw cost money and took time to install. The number of installed case screws was reduced and she got her bonus. This is a very simple example of what happens in Industry. The same principle is applied to much larger, more expensive items when profit margins are involved. My father worked in the Aero Engine industry and his team were regularly tasked with reviewing the BoM and reduce production costs. There was an awful lot of pressure from above to increase the profit margins but thankfully in that particular product realm, there was an over riding safety requirement that was the ace in the pack for the team that could be played if required. Aero engines must be safe !

When a product is designed, it is often over engineered and then the design team can roll back a little on the BoM cost to please management. Production cost reduction is just part of the design process. The cost reduction process can continue after initial production and also during a design review, update or refresh. The first generation product can turn out to be the better made with subsequent versions cost reduced and of lesser build quality, yet theoretically still meeting the original design criteria. The problem with the first generation design is that it may actually contain defects or vulnerabilities that are corrected in later revisions. It is a difficult choice that ‘early adopters’ of a new technology or products consider when buying such technology. Just take a look at the first generation Philips consumer grade Audio CD players .... they were built like battleships but their error correction was very much first generation and greatly improved in later product releases. That said, later models used plastic where once there had been metal and were of pretty cheap build quality with the OEM not expecting them to have a particularly long operational life. People started to change their Hi-Fi system more often due to lower cost so the operational life of the CD player became less of an issue.

I specialise in thermal camera repair and see exactly how cost reduction techniques have been applied to the technology over the years. Early models were commonly built with a metal chassis, had great temperature stability and served their owners well for many years with little to no calibration issues or failures. Modern versions of those cameras are cheaper to buy, contain highly integrated electronics packages, advanced firmware and higher performance imaging sensor arrays. To offset the clear benefits of these newer models, they are often of less rugged construction and may use cost reduced components and optics that can degrade life expectancy and performance. So which is better ? It can be a hard decision that is driven by the users needs. The original camera cost about the same as a small house and so was limited to those with significant funds. The later models are far more affordable but arguably of lesser build quality. If a camera from either era fails, they can be challenging to repair due to the lack of service data and configuration software :( The modern, cheaper camera may be more prone to failure and require expensive OEM repair, but its more modern imaging performance may be better and unit cost significantly lower. Is it better to repair an older camera technology, that is showing its age, or just going out and buying a cheaper, more modern, version that may fail in time but comes with a fresh warranty and OEM support ? That is for the end user to decide.
Sometimes the decision is not an easy one to make due to investment in a particular camera in terms of its expensive accessories. At other times it is a ‘no-brainier’. In situations like Fire Brigade thermal camera usage, the decision is often made based on camera reliability in service, age, support and replacement cost. At some point it is better to replace the cameras than to keep spending money repairing them, if support still exists.

I believe the ‘right to repair’ is what is says. I would like access to the service data and any utilities required from the OEM to repair their equipment. Those ‘tools’ and service information may come at a cost but at least they will be available. This is little different to the situation facing independent garages who use many different Scan and diagnostic tools to diagnose and repair faults on different brands of vehicle. There was a time when 3rd party scan and configuration tools were rare as OEM’s wanted their proprietary service data protected from such independent operators. Times have changed in that Industry and I would like to see the same happen across the electronics industry, but I suspect, as others have already stated, there will be the challenge of whether it is truly financially viable and sensible to repair ageing equipment rather than to buy new.

Hence why I repair thermal cameras as a hobby and not as a business  ;D
SilverSolder:

--- Quote from: Fraser on April 14, 2021, 11:27:49 am ---[...] The later models are far more affordable but arguably of lesser build quality. [...]

--- End quote ---

This statement is broadly applicable to pretty much all products nowadays - the result of a relentless trend that has been going on since...  forever?

It seems the holy grail is to make products 100% reliable for a specific planned life span that depends on the product, after which they are expected to be 100% useless and recycled.

This obviously opens a gap for people that find ways to extend the life of these products beyond their planned obsolescence time, but such people are probably seen as a net negative to society from the perspective of manufacturers, shareholders, and politicians! 

A lot of effort goes into preventing people extending the life of products... these seem to be the rules:
  * Do not make circuit diagrams, theory of operation, or anything like that available outside the inner circle.
  * Avoid making spare parts easily/cheaply available unless these parts themselves are profitable wear items.
  * Use aggressive intellectual property law enforcement to prevent others from making the parts that you refuse to make available yourself
  * Make products difficult to repair and/or modify.  If you can pot the entire product in concrete, perfect!

On the business side:
  * Discourage customers from repairing anything, instead point to new products costing not much more than a repair
  * Get the "easy monthly payments" flowing, if you can get people to subscribe to their own internal organs you are on the right track!

CatalinaWOW:
A lot of this thread ascribes behaviors to evil that are just doing what each of us advocates doing for ourselves or what we have driven them to do. 

Examples:

1.  Manufacturers eliminating piece part availability and only providing modules.  In our personal worlds we find that older parts are no longer available and so design in newer parts.  At the module level the design remains interchangeable.

2.  Manufacturers reduce design margins or durability to reduce cost.  In our personal world we select the best price goods that meet our needs.  Yes, we are willing to spend more for quality, but usually not everywhere and for everything.  We realize that our need for some products isn't forever and we compromise.

3.  Manufacturers optimize designs to meet market needs.  This one hits me hard.  I am very tall, well over two meters.  Years ago a variety of car models were accessible to me.  But size in a car means lower fuel economy, higher emissions and more material costs.  The market demands excellent performance in these three areas and has become very good at making automobile cabins just barely big enough for their +3 sigma customers.  To their credit they have dramatically improved the accessibility to the -3 sigma customers.  But cars that serve people outside of those +/- 3 sigma limits have become as rare as hens teeth.  The designs have been well optimized.

While I am all for the right to repair, we have to recognize that it comes at a price in things we actually value.
Bassman59:

--- Quote from: CatalinaWOW on April 14, 2021, 04:10:43 pm ---While I am all for the right to repair, we have to recognize that it comes at a price in things we actually value.
--- End quote ---

The question is simple.

Are customers willing to pay extra for a product that is "easier" to repair?

We know the answer.
AndyC_772:
The problem there is lack of clear, accurate information at the point of sale. By looking at an appliance from the outside, can you tell if it's repairable?

I had to replace my washing machine a couple of years ago - catastrophic failure of the spider after 13 years, £600 for a new drum assembly. I wasn't impressed with that, but I was even less impressed with what I learned about the costs and repairability of machines from every other manufacturer. The standard is now to produce a machine with a sealed drum, small main bearings and no way to replace them when they fail.
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