| Electronics > Repair |
| EU Right to Repair |
| << < (7/10) > >> |
| AndyC_772:
I wouldn't pay 1.5x to keep parts in stock way beyond the date after which every last example of a device would most likely have been scrapped for one reason or another regardless. I would, however, pay 1.5x to have a machine of equivalent spec, but manufactured to a higher degree of quality so it lasts longer and is less likely to break in the first place, which ships with a service manual included in the box, and for which there's an online parts store containing exploded diagrams of the device along with order codes, prices, and "in stock" next to 95% of them. |
| Monkeh:
--- Quote from: Infraviolet on July 07, 2024, 10:55:16 pm ---As soon as such information is made available, some will post it online for wider sharing. --- End quote --- No, people will start selling it for personal profit and only little trickles of it will actually be made available. As is already the case. This stuff needs to not be restricted - if I want the documentation for a product I own, I should be able to access it. If I have to pay a fee to a legitimate provider, fine, but not to someone who has no right to charge it. |
| m k:
How many parts is a smartphone? How many parts is a smartphone part? One approach could be a standard enclosure. Then standard mainboard. Older folks may remember how Bosman rule destroyed the world. Industrial engine can be also fitted in a car using an adapter plate. |
| madires:
Regarding Haenk's lash out, BSH (Bosch/Siemens home appliances) stock spare parts for about 10 to 15 years and prices are reasonable. If you want to repair anything there's a ton of DIY repair videos on YouTube. Manufacturers optimize product series to use the same parts, i.e. different models often have the same base. The difference is two buttons more, a slightly different firmware for the MCU and maybe an additional module. This also helps with minimizing the stock of spare parts. What needs to be addressed are manufacturers who want to control the repair in order to push customers to buy new devices and/or EOL devices early by not providing security updates or bug fixes for firmwares/OSs. |
| rteodor:
--- Quote from: wraper on July 08, 2024, 11:07:18 am --- --- Quote from: rteodor on July 08, 2024, 10:27:26 am --- --- Quote from: Arhigos on July 08, 2024, 09:53:04 am --- --- Quote from: SteveThackery on July 07, 2024, 07:49:48 pm ---This seems a ridiculously short time. I own three cars and all are older than 20 years. In fact, I'd very much want all my household appliances to last at least 20 years. --- End quote --- How businesses suppose to make it happen? They should keep warehouses full of obsolete items for 20 years? And what if they run out of that part? They should provide you a free replacement? :wtf: --- End quote --- Nope. They should either: - use standard components - use standard interfaces (i.e. no soldered RAM, SDD and batteries) - open specifications for other companies to manufacture replacement parts if inhouse storage and/or manufacturing is no longer economical. Sub-contracting is also an already established practice but not widespread enough. --- End quote --- Try writing that into a law in a way so it does not backfire spectacularly. --- End quote --- I don't think R2R can be put in directly law. There are all kinds of dangers and societal burden in that. Instead law should focus on organizing and maintaining market pressure. Sort of like wistleblower protection law. Mandate repairability scores. Protect NGO's that watch the market. Mandate transfer of servicing responsibility in case of company mergers, acquisitions, bankruptcy, etc. --- Quote from: wraper ---And I don't see how it can be required to use standard parts in a way that progress does not go down the drain. Who decides what is a standard part and where it's required to use a standard part? Is a standard part an MCU or a whole board? What if by using "standard parts" you need to use 10x more materials to do the same thing? Not to say as a small company you won't be able to make your part standard, so it will push out small players. --- End quote --- By "standard component" I mean one that is available from several manufacturers at design time. If it can be proven post-factum that a non-standard design choice was made where a standard was blatantly available then progressively tax/fine the company. Leave some room for experimentation in the beginning then raise the tax until its no longer economical. This is how Apple vs. USBC situation should have been handled and NOT by making a special law for it. Later edit: was it that hard in Apple case to mandate both options (FW and USBC) to be available and let the market choose !? |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |