EU Right to Repair

[SteveThackery]

Colleagues!

Has "right to repair" legislation affected you to any significant extent?

I ask because I live in Britain and we are broadly following the EU rules, and I'm struck by how toothless they are.  For example, spares need only be available for seven to ten years after a product's market introduction. 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.

Also, it seems that data and documentation need only be made available to "repair professionals". This is a massive blow for me because I'm a hobbiest repairer in several fields but a professional in none. I've hardly ever used a professional repairer and I don't want to start now because of the costs.

I expect the argument to support that position is that many products have a safety element involved, especially electrical items. But now I'm left wondering how a "professional repairer" would be evaluated for their skills and qualifications relating to electrical work.  Have any of you been through such a process?

Here in Europe right-to-repair seems a great idea, but in practice probably won't make all that much difference.  It seems obvious to me that repairs are the very last thing product manufacturers want; they want to sell you a new one, every time, if they can.

[Paceguy]

I'm in Canada and there has been talk about the right to repair and to strengthen consumer protection laws to have manufacturers sell products that last, for what can be considered a reasonable life time. Also to have them make replacements parts available for more than 5 years. There is too much e-waste and home appliances being junked within 8 years of their usefull life. Spare parts are hard to find and when one does find them, they, more than often, are extremely expensive making one think twice about going forward with a repair and instead putting the money towards the purchase or a new unit.

[Infraviolet]

" need only be made available to "repair professionals" "
As soon as such information is made available, some will post it online for wider sharing. Look at what Rossmann does, he's in America and his business is mostly focused on repairing Apple devices, but the same should happen sooner or later for any other device manufacturers once documentation is shared.

[Arhigos]

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.

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? 

[wraper]

Colleagues!

Has "right to repair" legislation affected you to any significant extent?

I ask because I live in Britain and we are broadly following the EU rules, and I'm struck by how toothless they are.  For example, spares need only be available for seven to ten years after a product's market introduction. 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.

It should depend on the type of product/part. For example it makes very little sense for keeping smartphone (especially low end) parts for more than 5 years as at that point it becomes beyond economical repair and a part will likely will be more expensive than a used phone, not even counting labor. As of your 20 year old car, I doubt you'll to pay for anything other than cheapest types of original parts as a new engine would likely cost like 3-5 cars of yours.

[rteodor]

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.

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? 

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.

A lot can be done if there is will.

[wraper]

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.

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? 

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.

Try writing that into a law in a way so it does not backfire spectacularly.

[AndyC_772]

How does any new component become a "standard component" under those restrictions?

"Sorry, you can't use that new part that's smaller / lower power / faster / cheaper (delete as applicable) than a 'standard' part, because it's not a 'standard' part."

[Arhigos]

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.

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? 

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.

A lot can be done if there is will.

Everyone is always trying to use standard components.
Some exemptions (i.e. ASIC chips or custom connectors) are usually used when there is no other alternative. Also, what's wrong with soldered chips? It saves money by removing extra parts from BOM and few less steps for assembly at factory

[Haenk]

I think we will see an even further move to standardized parts - within one company, of course. There really is no need to rush out new models of a dishwasher every 6 months, still companies prefer to do that, until now. Now the stockpiling of spare parts will be so expensive they likely will reduce the number of "pseudo-new" products by a lot.
Still they could construct those things to be never ever repaired, like my Bosch (?) washing mashine. No removable panels, no screws, everything held together tightly by enourmous springs, which I didn't dare to touch. They really looked life-threatening and impossible to reinstall; shame on me, but I dumped it, the damaged parts was simply unreachable without disassembling the machine. So even offereing all parts for cheap would make a repair nearly impossible (or maybe they have a speacial tool in the repair shop, like the widowmaker spring compressor...).

[wraper]

I think we will see an even further move to standardized parts - within one company, of course. There really is no need to rush out new models of a dishwasher every 6 months, still companies prefer to do that, until now. Now the stockpiling of spare parts will be so expensive they likely will reduce the number of "pseudo-new" products by a lot.

There is no old/new part compatibility problem in dishwashers beside circuit boards. Pumps, sensors, gaskets, tray wheels remain the same for many years.

[wraper]

Still they could construct those things to be never ever repaired, like my Bosch (?) washing mashine. No removable panels, no screws, everything held together tightly by enourmous springs, which I didn't dare to touch.

What enormous springs? Springs that hold the the drum unit? What screws, do you want drum unit to be bolted to the enclosure so machine jumps above the floor every time it does a spin cycle? What removable panels do you need when basically everything can be accessed from the top, back/front  . Also unless drum unit front and back plastic housings are welded together (usually in cheap machines) it can be taken apart and repaired too.

[fmashockie]

Colleagues!

Has "right to repair" legislation affected you to any significant extent?

I ask because I live in Britain and we are broadly following the EU rules, and I'm struck by how toothless they are.  For example, spares need only be available for seven to ten years after a product's market introduction. 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.

Also, it seems that data and documentation need only be made available to "repair professionals". This is a massive blow for me because I'm a hobbiest repairer in several fields but a professional in none. I've hardly ever used a professional repairer and I don't want to start now because of the costs.

I expect the argument to support that position is that many products have a safety element involved, especially electrical items. But now I'm left wondering how a "professional repairer" would be evaluated for their skills and qualifications relating to electrical work.  Have any of you been through such a process?

Here in Europe right-to-repair seems a great idea, but in practice probably won't make all that much difference.  It seems obvious to me that repairs are the very last thing product manufacturers want; they want to sell you a new one, every time, if they can.

Huge proponent of right to repair.  It would be ideal if we could collectively come together a society and agree that the current way of doing things isn't working.  In the same way we feel about climate change (look how well that is going).  Because the two are related.  And at this point, it is not only the manufacturers' fault: consumers don't care to repair their devices and only want the next latest/greatest thing; manufacturers recognize this and continue to make their items more difficult to repair.  It is a bit of a chicken or the egg situation.  I'm not sure which came first. 

Parts should be made available, schematics/service manuals as well.  It's not like we are asking the manufacturers to do something they've never done before.  They used to.  And then they stopped.  So personally, I don't care if they have to keep a replacement part stocked for 20 years.  If they stopped making a new dishwasher as someone said every 6 months, this wouldn't be all that hard!  And again, that is where the consumer's role comes in in all this. 

[wraper]

They used to.  And then they stopped.  So personally, I don't care if they have to keep a replacement part stocked for 20 years. If they stopped making a new dishwasher as someone said every 6 months, this wouldn't be all that hard!  And again, that is where the consumer's role comes in in all this.

If you want washing machine parts stocked for 20 years, you should not care paying 1.5x for a machine as well. IMO parts and especially schematics should be available to the public but 20 years is ridiculous and does not come for free.

[fmashockie]

If you want washing machine parts stocked for 20 years, you should not care paying 1.5x for a machine as well. IMO parts and especially schematics should be available to the public but 20 years is ridiculous and does not come for free.

I'd have no problem paying more for a washer that is going to last 20 years vs one that will last 5 years.  I think most people would agree on that.  Now getting them to understand that at time of purchase, is another matter.  And in fact, if you're someone who looks for reliability/longevity in things you buy, you're probably already used to paying more, because companies that make things last are generally using better parts which are more expensive.

Look, asking to keep a part stocked for 20 years isn't a ridiculous thing.  My toyota is pushing 20 years and I can still get all the parts for it from Toyota. I work as a lab engineer and even a lot of lab equipment manufacturers do this (and they are huge offenders of right to repair in general).  Do I think there should be laws that state a part needs to be stocked that long?  I'm not sure.  What I'm advocating for is a change we all need to make as individuals.  And it would be better if it occurred without any laws.  But if we want to talk about laws, I'd push for laws that make service manuals/schematics available.  Those documents already exist; they just need to make them available to the public.

[wraper]

Look, asking to keep a part stocked for 20 years isn't a ridiculous thing.  My toyota is pushing 20 years and I can still get all the parts for it from Toyota. I work as a lab engineer and even a lot of lab equipment manufacturers do this (and they are huge offenders of right to repair in general).  Do I think there should be laws that state a part needs to be stocked that long?  I'm not sure.  What I'm advocating for is a change we all need to make as individuals.  And it would be better if it occurred without any laws.  But if we want to talk about laws, I'd push for laws that make service manuals/schematics available.  Those documents already exist; they just need to make them available to the public.

They may keep some parts for 20 years because not that many are needed, it's not something that goes obsolete (like bearings) and they don't take that much space. But requirement for storing parts would need them keeping a full stock of parts for 20 years with no prior knowledge how much of what actually will be needed.

I work as a lab engineer and even a lot of lab equipment manufacturers do this (and they are huge offenders of right to repair in general).

In this field IME they have the stock of parts for 1-2 decades until eventually they run out of more and more parts.

[SteveThackery]

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.

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? 

So what do you think is a reasonable time? 10 years? 5 years? Choose a number, and then justify it to us.

If we want to reduce e-waste, then logically the higher the number the better.

[SteveThackery]

Try writing that into a law in a way so it does not backfire spectacularly.

But that is exactly what the legislators are trying to do.  Do you disagree with the attempt to reduce e-waste?

[SteveThackery]

...... 20 years is ridiculous and does not come for free.

Nobody said it should come for free.  I think products are too cheap, and that encourages our throw-away society.  And yet I can see how complicated it might be to guarantee repairability - the longer, the more difficult.

If you think 20 years is ridiculous (and you'd be in good company), tell us a non-ridiculous number and then justify it.

[nali]

Keeping spares for 20 years is going to be at a massive cost - either in the cost of the spare part, or the cost of new product.

I used to work for Panasonic (Matsushita) in the 1990s whose policy then was spares support for 7 years. Their spares holding ran into the tens of thousands of line items, all individually packaged and maintained. That along with the downward trend in new product prices is why a new circuit board for your 5 year old widget costs more than buying a new widget.

[wraper]

Try writing that into a law in a way so it does not backfire spectacularly.

But that is exactly what the legislators are trying to do.  Do you disagree with the attempt to reduce e-waste?

I disagree with creating more and more feel good regulations by politicians with no clue of how things actually work. Many things that sound well are absolutely terrible in practice.  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.

[SteveThackery]

FWIW, I suspect making sure the electronics are repairable for 20 years is the least of your problems.  A failed ASIC is probably a show-stopper, but pretty much everything else is easy. We've all worked on electronics older than that. I've got a valve amplifier to repair which is about 65 years old, and it's perfectly repairable.

No, I suspect the real showstoppers will be things like complex plastic mouldings - basically stuff that is literally unique to one specific product.  Even then, in 20 years time we might well have the ability to scan in a 3D shape, "repair" it in your CAD program, and then print another. Indeed we can do it now, and it's only going to get easier.

Anything mechanical and metal will basically be fixable forever.

[AndyC_772]

I'd start by visiting a local rubbish tip, looking in the e-waste bin, and taking an inventory. Any R2R rules would only need to cover, say, 80% of the weight of that bin's contents in order to achieve a really worthwhile goal. Anything representing less weight of rubbish than that would fall into the 'restrictions do more harm than good' category, which would exempt almost anything that isn't a consumer item, and spare the electronics industry as a whole an enormous weight of bureaucracy and restrictions for minimal gain.

What's left? TVs, washing machines, fridges, microwaves, etc. All kinds of stuff that can be - and therefore usually is - built down to an absolute minimum price with no regard for longevity or serviceability.

Here I completely agree, there's no good reason why spare parts shouldn't be routinely made available, kept available for a reasonable amount of time after a product has been discontinued, and supplied at reasonable cost to anyone and everyone as a matter of routine.

However, by weight, volume, or any other metric that can be meaninfully applied to e-waste, I don't think there's any real benefit to applying similar restrictions to lab equipment and similar. Landfill sites are simply not full of old scopes and power supplies; they're full of crap, bottom-of-the-barrel brand consumer goods that have lasted their 2 yr warranties and then died.

[wraper]

If you think 20 years is ridiculous (and you'd be in good company), tell us a non-ridiculous number and then justify it.

As I said above, there is no fits all number. Say who in hell needs 20 year old RAM for the price as when it was produced when it's basically worthless?

[fmashockie]

I'm in a bit of agreement with wraper in that nailing down the parts availability law is a bit more challenging.  I think that has to come from us.  Again, if we as consumers weren't looking for the next/best trend/thing, asking a company to keep parts for a product that will be kept by the consumer for 10-20 years anyway, isn't ridiculous to ask.  And as I've stated before, there are companies that already do this because they make products that are built to last and are reliable.  Toyota is an example. I've got no idea what the percentage is (I would estimate > 75% of the parts on that vehicle are still available), but I do my own car repairs and I have yet to come across a part I couldn't order directly from the manufacture for my vehicle that is now > 15 years old. 

[SteveThackery]

I disagree with creating more and more feel good regulations by politicians with no clue of how things actually work. Many things that sound well are absolutely terrible in practice. 

This sounds defeatist to me.  Anyone can think of a hundred reasons not to do something.  The smart people do it anyway.

I know that sounds glib, but I'm trying to illustrate how we need a new way of thinking if we're going to reduce waste:

1/ "It's a bad idea, it probably can't work, and anyway it would cost a fortune."

2/ We are going to reduce waste.  It won't be cheap and it won't be easy, but we are smart people who can achieve almost anything. Bring me a list of "impossibles" and let's just see how many we can turn into "possibles".  For the rest, we'll find workarounds."

I know it's easy to say, but when I worked in R&D that was pretty much the ethos. It requires us to adopt a different mind-set: "Other people said it can't be done. We don't have that luxury."

Of course, "do it anyway" may well involve some seriously lateral thinking. It may - rarely - be literally beyond our ability. But I betcha that'll be single digit percentages.  A different ethos, a different starting point, can release extraordinary creativity.

[SteveThackery]

If you think 20 years is ridiculous (and you'd be in good company), tell us a non-ridiculous number and then justify it.

As I said above, there is no fits all number. Say who in hell needs 20 year old RAM for the price as when it was produced when it's basically worthless?

I don't think we said the price has to be the same, did we?  Maybe it does - I happily stand corrected.  We can all think of reasons why it's a bad idea; now let's put as much effort into making it a good idea.

[wraper]

If you think 20 years is ridiculous (and you'd be in good company), tell us a non-ridiculous number and then justify it.

As I said above, there is no fits all number. Say who in hell needs 20 year old RAM for the price as when it was produced when it's basically worthless?

I don't think we said the price has to be the same, did we?  Maybe it does - I happily stand corrected.  Just because we can all think of examples of why it's a bad idea, how about we put as much effort into making it a good idea?

If you need to stock a part that quickly deprecates in value, you still paid the original price for the part. Them selling it for current market price would mean taking a huge loss. Do you think manufacturer wants subsidizing your repair of some old garbage they want you to get rid of and buy a new thing from them to begin with?

[SteveThackery]

If you need to stock a part that quickly deprecates in value, you still paid the original price for the part. Them selling it for current market price would mean taking a huge loss. Do you think manufacturer wants subsidizing your repair of some old garbage they want you to get rid of and buy a new thing from them to begin with?

Yes, that is the argument.

But let me ask you: what would you do about reducing waste?

[wraper]

If you need to stock a part that quickly deprecates in value, you still paid the original price for the part. Them selling it for current market price would mean taking a huge loss. Do you think manufacturer wants subsidizing your repair of some old garbage they want you to get rid of and buy a new thing from them to begin with?

Yes, that is the argument.

But let me ask you: what would you do about reducing waste?

As I already said, are you ready to pay 1.5x for the device so manufacturer would keep parts in stock for 20 years? I somehow doubt you'd pay even 10% extra for that.

[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]

As soon as such information is made available, some will post it online for wider sharing.

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]

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.

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? 

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.

Try writing that into a law in a way so it does not backfire spectacularly.

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.

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.

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 !?

[rogerggbr]

Great question Steve. To be fair, some manufacturers are getting better. I have done 2 fixes on my Bosch washing machine so far, replaced the door switch and replaced the brushes in the motor. Parts came from Bosch distributor in UK.
The problem can be split into 2:-
1. Spare parts. Always contentious and very difficult to legislate for outside of already very regulated industries e.g. vehicles.
2. Documentation. I got the parts because I could find the part number easily. Today it would be very easy to force manufacturers to release the full documentation of products going out of support, or some time after. As this must include parts lists and schematics it will be of great help to fixing many things - it is up to us then what we do, but at least we have a choice and a chance. I realise this doesn't solve all problems, but as Steve says we should start somewhere.
With regard to electrical safety, how do you think the repair cafes/clubs manage? Assessing competency is not easy (outside of a tick box environment) but their popularity is growing rapidly and they don't seem to be causing harm to many people....

[wraper]

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.

Multiple sources thing is irrecoverably dead for 3 decades except for the most basic components. The only reason it was a thing was because large corporations such as IBM made it a requirement for their suppliers.

[fmashockie]

I have a theory: I think SteveThackery is an operative hired by a conglomerate of electronic device manufacturers, sent in to infiltrate the EEV blog and disrupt the forum by starting charged discussions in the 'Repair' forum (these threads he started really belong in different forum IMO) to thwart the process of members helping one another repair their devices.  Instead, we spend our time arguing with him in these threads which falls in line perfectly with his plan...

[fzabkar]

I have a theory: I think SteveThackery is an operative hired by a conglomerate of electronic device manufacturers, sent in to infiltrate the EEV blog and disrupt the forum by starting charged discussions in the 'Repair' forum (these threads he started really belong in different forum IMO) to thwart the process of members helping one another repair their devices.  Instead, we spend our time arguing with him in these threads which falls in line perfectly with his plan...

You need to chill. Steve's discussions are perfectly valid. In fact, if you intend to embark on your new career path, Right to Repair will be a big thing in your favour.

[AndyC_772]

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.

This whole idea is completely dead in the water from day one, sorry. It's a legacy hangover from the days when electronics were built out of 74LS logic and 555 timers, totally inapplicable to anything even remotely current.

Device manufacturers have to be able to innovate; to produce parts that aren't just the same as the generic ones that other companies are also making.

Making something better than what has gone before means it's not the same any more. It's no longer interchangeable with competitors' parts, and that's perfectly OK - it's how technological progress is made.

[fmashockie]

I have a theory: I think SteveThackery is an operative hired by a conglomerate of electronic device manufacturers, sent in to infiltrate the EEV blog and disrupt the forum by starting charged discussions in the 'Repair' forum (these threads he started really belong in different forum IMO) to thwart the process of members helping one another repair their devices.  Instead, we spend our time arguing with him in these threads which falls in line perfectly with his plan...

You need to chill. Steve's discussions are perfectly valid. In fact, if you intend to embark on your new career path, Right to Repair will be a big thing in your favour.

Relax.  It was a joke.  Already stated I am a huge proponent of right to repair and agree with him in this case.  Still doesn't change the fact that these are topic that belong in a different forum.

[SteveThackery]

I have a theory: I think SteveThackery is an operative hired by a conglomerate of electronic device manufacturers, sent in to infiltrate the EEV blog and disrupt the forum by starting charged discussions in the 'Repair' forum (these threads he started really belong in different forum IMO) to thwart the process of members helping one another repair their devices.  Instead, we spend our time arguing with him in these threads which falls in line perfectly with his plan...

😂😂 Brilliant!  If only I had such power and influence!

I used this forum because it is populated by people who do repairs, so we are likely to see some well-informed arguments instead of the bee-in-my-bonnet drivel from the keyboard warriors and blowhards that occupy some of the "general talking shop" forums.

I honestly do think R2R is relevant to many here, because the EU is definitely pushing that debate forwards towards legislation. And who can blame them?  If you don't support R2R, what would you do to reduce e-waste?

[SteveThackery]

This whole idea is completely dead in the water from day one, sorry. It's a legacy hangover from the days when electronics were built out of 74LS logic and 555 timers, totally inapplicable to anything even remotely current.

Device manufacturers have to be able to innovate; to produce parts that aren't just the same as the generic ones that other companies are also making.

Making something better than what has gone before means it's not the same any more. It's no longer interchangeable with competitors' parts, and that's perfectly OK - it's how technological progress is made.

Yep - in line with the arguments put so far.  But if you accept that Western governments want to crack down on e-waste, what alternative approaches would you suggest?

I want to emphasise - this is not a baited question. It's an issue we will all have to deal with sooner or later.

[fmashockie]

I have a theory: I think SteveThackery is an operative hired by a conglomerate of electronic device manufacturers, sent in to infiltrate the EEV blog and disrupt the forum by starting charged discussions in the 'Repair' forum (these threads he started really belong in different forum IMO) to thwart the process of members helping one another repair their devices.  Instead, we spend our time arguing with him in these threads which falls in line perfectly with his plan...

😂😂 Brilliant!  If only I had such power and influence!

I used this forum because it is populated by people who do repairs, so we are likely to see some well-informed arguments instead of the bee-in-my-bonnet drivel from the keyboard warriors and blowhards that occupy some of the "general talking shop" forums.

I honestly do think R2R is relevant to many here, because the EU is definitely pushing that debate forwards towards legislation. And who can blame them?  If you don't support R2R, what would you do to reduce e-waste?

I'm kidding with you Steve I'm glad you saw that  .  But it is a topic that needs much discussion.  I was only nitpicking at this point that it should be a discussion held in a separate forum.  I'm in much agreement with you here.  I'm also glad you draw attention to the amount of waste we cause with our current practices.  I feel this point is left out of so many discussions on climate change.  You have manufacturers boasting how 'green' they are, while they contribute directly and indirectly to tons of waste by being in direct opposition of R2R.  I'm just not sure how to handle the parts situation.  Schematics/service manuals: that law should be changed to make those available to the public, not just repair professionals.  But the parts thing is a bit trickier.  At least from a legislation standpoint.

[AndyC_772]

Yep - in line with the arguments put so far.  But if you accept that Western governments want to crack down on e-waste, what alternative approaches would you suggest?

You can't legislate for what specific components may, or may not, be used in a design purely based on how many competing suppliers make each one; I think that's fairly obvious.

I think I'd go so far as to say you can't legislate on how the design should be at all, save for meeting certain criteria such as EMC and safety regulations being met, or the battery being replaceable by the end user.

The first thing I would do is introduce mandatory repairability scores at the point of sale, on certain types of apparatus that make up the bulk of e-waste by weight. They've done this already in France and it seems to be working. People like to have this information to help them make an informed purchasing choice, and it's not something that's readily available prior to purchase otherwise.

Have a read: https://www.ifixit.com/News/80361/ifixit-vs-french-repairability-score

[Dr. Frank]

This new EU law sounds to be a good idea, and I of course welcome it, but I guess, this will not work well practically for commercial goods, or not better than currently.

I'm doing repair of electronics, mechanics and virtually all things in the house nearly my whole life, i.e. for over 50 years. For 2 years, I did T&M repair and calibration on a professional basis. 
Nowadays, I am a Component Technology Expert, and manage as well changes and termination of components (PCN / PTN).

In the Automotive Industry, spare parts have to be provided by the Tier1's (suppliers of the devices) to the OEMs (car manufacturers), for 10..15 years after end of series production at least. That depends on the OEM, some luxury cars have longer delivery / aftermarket obligations. As cars are an expensive good, it makes sense to provide spare parts for a long time. Cars were designed to last for a long time, and they have a very high quality level, therefore the rate of defects over time is low, quite predictable, so one can make safe forecasts of needed spare parts.

If you have cheap commercial goods, that does not make any sense, at first because the repair cost very soon make it BER = Beyond Economical Repair, 2nd because the spare part handling costs quickly are not profitable any more for the device manufacturers and 3rd because due to lack of appropriate quality systems and lack of Robust Design, test and validation, the  probability and amount of defects can not be predicted.

That 3rd problem is the true reason behind the so called "planned obsolescence". I guess that practically no company / engineer would purposely design in a somehow limited lifetime of his product. Robust Design development and so forth costs a lot of money and experience, which cheap manufacturers usually don't have.
The other aspect in this context is the construction of the device, which either enables its later repair, or even inhibits replacement of wear parts.
It would have been better, if the prohibition of latter methods would have been more strictly and more detailed described in the EU law.

In Automotive Industry, the Tier1 usually manufacture the devices, which they deliver to the OEMs, only on demand. That also applies to Spare Parts.
For latter, they use electronic and non-electronic components from actual production of the Tier2's (component suppliers), plus all the stocked parts, which have been already terminated by the Tier2, (PTN = Product Termination Notification), plus stocked tools, test and programming equipment, and so on, to produce spare parts on the still running actual production lines. I.e. the production lines need to have a certain downward compatibility.

You also have the possibility, to stock the whole finished device, but that kind of storage is very expensive, as it has to be done under special environmental conditions, and especially electrolytic capacitors inside the device are a problem.
Anyhow, handling of stock and the re-production in small quantities makes the spare parts very expensive, at least a factor of 10 and much more of the original price.

Component Level Repair (which requires schematics and special tools) is of course not available to the end customer.

That's as well the problem with T&M equipment, for HP since the 1990ties already. So you can nowadays only get repair on board level, i.e. the manufactures will sell the whole board, or will only allow the repair by himself.

More valuable Commercial electronics/mechanics like White Goods (Bosch, Miele, Siemens,..) here in Germany already provide quite reasonably priced spare parts for 10 years after EOP. Using their own repair service is often BER as well.
A lot of DIY documentation can be found on YT, as they do not offer schematics for repair on Component level.

That is the central culprit, that neither manufacturer is obligated to provide construction details, even not for commercial repair shops, which could limit or inhibit their loss of IP. 

In the EU law, there is currently a very limited number of commercial applications which have to provide repair and spare parts for a longer time. It's really tricky to define useful extensions, where it makes real technical and commercial sense to create such a big effort.
As the EU probably will overdo this idea, as always, small and cheap devices will not be available any more on the market, or those companies sell their stuff w/o ever providing the spare part and repair service, and might terminate their business after end of series production later.

As well, I think that there will be no real controlling process, whether and how well manufactures obey this new law, or not.

Frank