If you live in the US- There is now an initiative push for a Right To Repair-

[cdev]

New York State (And now, also Minnesota) are striking back against planned obsolescence!

http://newyork.digitalrighttorepair.org/

Also- nationally :  http://.digitalrighttorepair.org

Related issue:  OpenOtto

[retrolefty]

New York State is striking back against planned obsolescence!

http://newyork.digitalrighttorepair.org/

Related issue:  OpenOtto

 I'm sure Apple Co., being so hip and all will just jump out to support this initiative. 

[tytower]

Hey Lefty nice 2 cu in posts again.
Hope you will support this - Would be good 2 get a circuit diagram at least!

[nctnico]

Interestingly a consumer magazine in the NL also features an article on repairing items this month. I guess the idea to have more stuff repaired in order to reduce the amount waste also lives at this side of the big lake.

[Rick Law]

You can get your stuff repair now if you so desire.  You just have to spend x10 what you paid for it new.  That isn't going to change because some politician passed a law.  One-to-one (person-to-machine) interaction time to debug and then to repair is expensive.

Two ways to make that work.
- Make repair cheap which means reduce the cost of labor - repair requires well trained labor.
- Make new product more expensive so by comparison repair cost is worth while.

So, get ready to spend $3000 for your next iPod.

[nctnico]

IMHO that is not true. There are many initiatives for bringing DIY repair back. Repair cafes for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repair_Caf%C3%A9 where doing something social and useful are brought together. All it takes is to make devices easier to disassemble and have spare parts available.

[Kjelt]

Lets face it, pcbs on component level for consumer products <€400 new are not going to be repaired by companies. What you do see are small companies that specialize in smartphone repair for instance and that will replace batteries or lcds for much lower cost than the original manufacturer.
Apple will in the guarantee period not even replace the product with a brand new one , no they exchange it for a refur ished one. This was on the news few months back when the customer bought a new ipad air, it malfunctioned in a few weeks and he got a refurbished one back. He went to court since he argued battery life could be affected and he paid for a new device. He won. And that is a company that makes billions a quartervat the moment.

[pickle9000]

I would like to see schematics and perhaps 3D images of parts available for small devices. When would that happen, perhaps when the model is out of production? It would be great for the recycle industry.

As for parts from a manufacturer, well hat would have to be cost related. If you hat a 20,000 dollar bit of gear it would be nice to have a repair manual and access to parts. In this case you can bet the item is not disposable.

Even so uphill battle.

[JacquesBBB]

You can get your stuff repair now if you so desire.  You just have to spend x10 what you paid for it new.  That isn't going to change because some politician passed a law.

On the opposite, I think that a lot can change if  some politician passes a law.

I do not believe in obligation  to the constructor, but you can make incitative laws. This has worked very well for energy efficient appliances, by the obligation of labelling properly the   power efficient class of the appliance.


You do not oblige the constructor of any performance, but it is mandatory to provide to the consumer  a clear label with  the energy class of the appliance. Then the consumer decides  if he wants to pay more for a more energy efficient device. 

You can think of the same thing for facility of repair. The only obligation to the constructor is to provide the information of  the degree of  reparability of the device on the label.

Then  everything could be rated  in this  grade :
- easy or not to disassemble
- provide or not the schematics
- use of universal interfaces
-  open source hardware / software
- easily available firmware upgrade
- disponibility of spare pieces.

and so on .

[Ian.M]

The other carrot and stick approach to increasing the proportion of items that are repaired is an point of sale eWaste tax on consumer products, to cover the cost of collection and responsible recycling, assessed on an actual specimen of the product.  Unfortunately, in today's consumer credit driven throw-away society, such a tax would be fairly unpopular and it would be difficult to find political support for it.

One of the enabling factors behind EU energy efficiency initiatives is the high level of decoupling between the consumer's vote and the non-elected officials implementing the initiatives.  By the time it hits the market and impacts the consumer, its too late for anyone to object, and its traditional for national governments to blame 'Brussels' for legislation introduced to implement new regulations, even if the requirements are tighter than the EU requirement.

[kc9qvl]

Why would anyone need a law to repair something. It's not illegal.

[nctnico]

The other carrot and stick approach to increasing the proportion of items that are repaired is an point of sale eWaste tax on consumer products, to cover the cost of collection and responsible recycling, assessed on an actual specimen of the product.  Unfortunately, in today's consumer credit driven throw-away society, such a tax would be fairly unpopular and it would be difficult to find political support for it.

Such a system has been in effect for around a decade in the NL. It is not intended to drive repairs but to raise money to get equipment recycled. At the moment I have 3 bins for 4 different kinds of waste in front of my door 

[oldway]

http://repaircafe.org/

[Monkeh]

Why would anyone need a law to repair something. It's not illegal.

But possessing the information required to do so may be.

[Rick Law]

You can get your stuff repair now if you so desire.  You just have to spend x10 what you paid for it new.  That isn't going to change because some politician passed a law.

On the opposite, I think that a lot can change if  some politician passes a law.

I do not believe in obligation  to the constructor, but you can make incitative laws. This has worked very well for energy efficient appliances, by the obligation of labelling properly the   power efficient class of the appliance.
...

We have a difference of opinion.  I subscribe to the idea that since Government is the only entity in the world that can take away property or even life legally, what government should do is as little as possible.

In fact, the whole US Constitution is to constrain what government is allowed to do.

How efficient an appliance is should be a decision of the consumer.  His money, his decision to spend it on electricity as the appliance is used or a more expensive one up front and less running cost later.

If you don't like the X (electronics, appliance, books, whatever), don't buy it.  Write (email) the manufacturer and tell them why.  Enough people do that, there will be manufacturers taking a different approach so as to take that niche of the market.

[JacquesBBB]

We have a difference of opinion. 

Who is "We" ?   Have you been mandated to speak on behalf  of a community ?  If  so, which  community ?

I subscribe to the idea that since Government is the only entity in the world that can take away property or even life legally, what government should do is as little as possible.

In fact, the whole US Constitution is to constrain what government is allowed to do.

How efficient an appliance is should be a decision of the consumer.  His money, his decision to spend it on electricity as the appliance is used or a more expensive one up front and less running cost later.

If you don't like the X (electronics, appliance, books, whatever), don't buy it.  Write (email) the manufacturer and tell them why.  Enough people do that, there will be manufacturers taking a different approach so as to take that niche of the market.

I am not speaking of obligation of  doing whatsoever for the  companies, I am just proposing that a clear labelling of the repair  factor  should be mandatory. Then the consumer judges what kind of product he wishes to buy, and at which price.

You seem to say that they are no regulations in the US, but there are. There  are regulations on labelling, on safety, and so on.. (I am certainly not an expert on US regulations, but I am sure other on the forum can extend on this ).

The proposition to rely uniquely on  the  consumer awareness  is very inefficient. It is OK to start a process,  it cannot  end  up  with the generalisation of a practice.

[Kjelt]

I am just proposing that a clear labelling of the repair  factor  should be mandatory.

Define repair factor in units?

[Rick Law]

We have a difference of opinion. 

Who is "We" ?   Have you been mandated to speak on behalf  of a community ?  If  so, which  community ?
...

re: Who is "We" ?

You and I are in conversation and it appears to me that you and I do disagree.  So, "We have a difference of opinion."

...

I subscribe to the idea that since Government is the only entity in the world that can take away property or even life legally, what government should do is as little as possible.

In fact, the whole US Constitution is to constrain what government is allowed to do.

How efficient an appliance is should be a decision of the consumer.  His money, his decision to spend it on electricity as the appliance is used or a more expensive one up front and less running cost later.

If you don't like the X (electronics, appliance, books, whatever), don't buy it.  Write (email) the manufacturer and tell them why.  Enough people do that, there will be manufacturers taking a different approach so as to take that niche of the market.

I am not speaking of obligation of  doing whatsoever for the  companies, I am just proposing that a clear labelling of the repair  factor  should be mandatory. Then the consumer judges what kind of product he wishes to buy, and at which price.

You seem to say that they are no regulations in the US, but there are. There  are regulations on labelling, on safety, and so on.. (I am certainly not an expert on US regulations, but I am sure other on the forum can extend on this ).

The proposition to rely uniquely on  the  consumer awareness  is very inefficient. It is OK to start a process,  it cannot  end  up  with the generalisation of a practice.

I am not saying there are no regulations in the US; on the contrary, I am saying there are too many regulations in the US.

Here, you can take it as I speak for a community of people.  The community consist of like minded people who wishes to stay true to The Constitution.  As the community "are like minded" so by definition they are those who agree with this view.

Our Constitution explicitly enumerates the power given to the federal government, and in the next sentence, explicitly stated that power not thus enumerated are reserved to the State Government.

My view is the same as those who wrote the Constitution.  Government is to be limited and constrained.  The less it does, the better.

State Governments are free to install regulations within the confines of The Constitution.  As have been said by many historian:  We have 13 experiments.  (13 states around the founding of the nation, 50 now)   Those who doesn't like how their States are ran, can go to other States.  Today, we have 50 to choose from.

New York (high regulation and high tax state) are loosing people to other states every day.  California is near bankrupt and lost a lot of businesses to Colorado, Texas, Nevada....

If you want to repair something, you don't need government to be involved, you do need them to stay away.  In many cases, you can't reverse engineer the digital-electronic thing to figure out how it works - digital rights violation.

If the government stays away, you want to repair something, just go do it.

Rick

[Wim_L]

I am just proposing that a clear labelling of the repair  factor  should be mandatory.

Define repair factor in units?

Perhaps mandatory labeling of certain misfeatures. Like, say, a mandatory notice on the packaging if batteries are not easily replaced by the average user. Preferably in a large and ugly font that will be noticed easily, similar to what some countries require for the mandatory warnings on products containing tobacco.

[miguelvp]

Or go to ifixit to check if the device is easy to repair or not. No need for regulation and stickers.

[pickle9000]

Manufacturers have little to no interest in doing anything that will not increase profit. Perhaps as a PR stunt but that is to increase profit as well. Forcing plastics labeling would never have been done without government involvement. Now we have an industry that revolves around simple labels.

I do think it would be worthwhile for manufacturers to be forced to put schematics and part images with specifications online for out of production products. 

Will it happen? Very, very unlikely. 

[SkyMaster]

"Right to Repair" is to force the corporations to make documentation and spare parts available, to the end users.

It is really surprising that some persons are against this concept.

[eas]

I subscribe to the idea that since Government is the only entity in the world that can take away property or even life legally, what government should do is as little as possible.

Government is the only entity in the world that can:
A. Take away property legally
B. Take away life legally
C. What government should do is as little as possible [including making laws about repairability]

To you, C may flow logically from A+B, but in case you haven't realized it by now, to some, there is an incredibly large gap there. This is probably not the place to fill it.

On the topic at hand, I have mixed feelings.

I have some plans to make a living by making and selling stuff that might need repair. It will be tough going at first, and having to meet some standards for repairability in the early days could be the difference between success and failure.

On the other hand, I buy stuff, and when that stuff breaks, some of it seems like it would be worth repairing, if only more information was available.

[SeanB]

Adding a tax to the price of an item does nothing. All it does is provide an extra revenue stream for government to use, and they will not use it for the repair or recycle that it was originally intended for. An example is fuel taxes and levies, originally intended for use to maintain roadways. Now you still pay this, but also have to pay extra on toll roads, even though the roads now tolled were originally paid for with the taxpayers money.

[Rick Law]

....
To you, C may flow logically from A+B, but in case you haven't realized it by now, to some, there is an incredibly large gap there. This is probably not the place to fill it.

On the topic at hand, I have mixed feelings.

I have some plans to make a living by making and selling stuff that might need repair. It will be tough going at first, and having to meet some standards for repairability in the early days could be the difference between success and failure.

On the other hand, I buy stuff, and when that stuff breaks, some of it seems like it would be worth repairing, if only more information was available.

Let just leave the other topic as something we disagree.  I have a lot to say about the problems facing us, but this is not the forum to get into it.

Now back to the main show:

You probably didn't mean "making and selling stuff that might need repair."  Why would you make something that needs repair.  Selling stuff that might need repair make sense.  Trouble is, value.

Apart from collectors items which has other value, common sense suggest to me that most appliance and "item for use" type stuff need to follow this basic rule:
Price_of_item_needing_fix + Cost_of_repair   must be less than    Cost_of_item_when_new

Cost_of_item_when_new keeps falling, so your sell price plus cost of repair must fall as well.  To estimate cost of repair, you need to spend a good bit of time trouble shooting or getting enough info for a good guess.

To be accurate, the compare should not be cost_of_item_when_new but instead it should be to cost_of_used_item_in_working condition.  That brings the number lower still.

I am but guessing, but I suspect for most consumer items, margin will be very very very thin.  As cost_of_item_new keep falling, the margin will just get thinner by the day.  If the item can be fixed by very cheap labor, there may be a better chance.

[JacquesBBB]

Or go to ifixit to check if the device is easy to repair or not. No need for regulation and stickers.

This is just for a minority of knowledgeable people and will have no impact on the items designs.

In fact, Ifixit is also part of a global effort to try to push  companies to provide more repairable items.
See
http://repaircafe.org/european-coalition-for-repairable-products/
as was already quoted by oldway a little above.

You should read
http://repaircafe.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Mission_Statement_Reparability_and_Durability_of_Products.pdf

[miguelvp]

As a consumer is up to you to vote with your wallet.

As a company is up to them to decide if they want their products totally open with schematics and available parts to be picked up by cloners that don't follow international patent/copyright standards and be driven out of business.

For this effort to take place we would need enforceable import laws like they have in Italy and see where that is getting them to.

So as an American I'm torn between my right to repair the products I purchase and the regulations that will make things more complicated and probably at a cost of the merchandise or the cost of the company going out of business because of full disclosure of their products.

To me is up to the consumer not the government to make those decisions by supporting the manufacturers that align with their needs.

[JacquesBBB]

To me is up to the consumer not the government to make those decisions by supporting the manufacturers that align with their needs.

I have no objection to that, but in order to be effective, the consumer needs to be informed. This is why I think that a proper labelling providing the "degree of repairability"  would be useful, in the same way as the labelling with the energy efficiency has been done.

Then

The consumer can choose wether he prefers to buy a more reparable product at a higher cost or not.

The company can decide  if they want to   make the effort to provide more repairable products. With the label, they know that if they make this effort, the product will be more attractive to consumers.


 

[pickle9000]

The government can do great things. I'm from Canada but I'm thankful for the California government, the smog laws not only improved air quality but are the basis for the obd2 standard. That had massive worldwide benefit.

Should a manufacturer be forced to supply replacement parts for a given product. I say no to that. Should they be forced to provide schematics, part specification, and 3d models of products? If it's in production I say no. If it's out of production yes. At that point it's an abandoned bit of gear. A mp3 player or monitor may only be in production for a matter of months but higher end gear much longer. This would encourage higher quality devices as well as allowing less expensive items to carry on a little longer.

- Would it be a selling point? 
- Could it turn into an industry?
- Would it be good for the environment?
- Would the poor benefit (in and out of country)?

[Kjelt]

I still don,t see it because of the custom chips. Where would you be able to buy the custom asics, cplds, programmed microcontrollers to repair the modern devices?

As a friendly carmechanic once told me every car mechanic can repair a car made before 1990.
But only the car company has the electronic parts to be able to repair a 21st century car.

Perhaps there should be a shift from easy repairable to long lasting, with a hard guarantee from the manufacturer of the product that he can be held to.
There is just too much junk products being sold that last a few months and then throw away, there is no point repairing junk.
If you have a rc battery operated toy car where the gears and bearings are made of plastick instead of metal what do you want to repair? It is totall loss since the design is crap to begin with.

[zapta]

This bill is yet another I-want-X-so-others-should-provide-it-to-me.  In this case its' schematics, documentation and spare parts.

[Noise Floor]

Let me start by saying that I agree with most in thread, I want the ability to be able to repair and hack the things I buy.
However the reason I'm jumping in is to offer the other perspective. 

Just yesterday I was at the car dealership for some ECU programming that could only be done there (supposedly). While in line the individual in front of me was yelling at the service manager about how the manufacturer better fix his car because it was under warranty and it just stopped working.  20 minutes later I'm sitting in the waiting area with the person and I overhear them on their cell phone exclaim "That turbo install didn't go well, so I stripped all the parts back to stock and now having them (dealer) fix it so I can try again with a different AFR mapping; I ran way to lean and screwed something up".  This is not unique, you can go on any car forum and find people regularly discussing modifications they make and then trying to pin responsibility of error on the manufacturer.

My point is only that the companies wanting to make more closed systems is not about preventing honest repairers from doing their thing, it much more about maintaining company control of (quality, profit, service, etc.).  Which for better or for worse, economic forces push large scale businesses (and small?) that direction.

[Rick Law]

To me is up to the consumer not the government to make those decisions by supporting the manufacturers that align with their needs.

I have no objection to that, but in order to be effective, the consumer needs to be informed. This is why I think that a proper labelling providing the "degree of repairability"  would be useful, in the same way as the labelling with the energy efficiency has been done.

Then

The consumer can choose wether he prefers to buy a more reparable product at a higher cost or not.

The company can decide  if they want to   make the effort to provide more repairable products. With the label, they know that if they make this effort, the product will be more attractive to consumers.

If you want to throw unlimited resources at it, repairability is always 100%.

Degree of repair-ability is just a function of how much resource you want to spend repairing it.  So listing it requires too many qualification/assumptions.  So such an index would be rather useless.

re: "The consumer can choose wether he prefers to buy a more reparable product at a higher cost or not. " [SIC]

Folks here are already practicing this alignment.  Reading the 6.5/5.5 digit DMM discussion, the point about availability of parts and repair info is always part of the discussion and is always affecting the resale value of the product.  Right here in this forum, even HP's power-on self test is cited as one of the reason why they are worth more on eBay.

[AlfBaz]

I would of thought the "right to repair" initiative wouldn't be so much a push to provide reparability but to point out the sometimes devious ways some manufacturers actively prevent people from attempting it.

Case in point is the pentalobe screws and the recent discovery that apple made one screw a tiny bit shorter than the others in one of their products so that if it didn't go back in the correct place the six or so other tiny bit longer screws would cut a pcb track on the board below.

To me there seems to be a world of difference between making things easier to repair and actively designing a product so that it cant

[Rick Law]

I would of thought the "right to repair" initiative wouldn't be so much a push to provide reparability but to point out the sometimes devious ways some manufacturers actively prevent people from attempting it.

Case in point is the pentalobe screws and the recent discovery that apple made one screw a tiny bit shorter than the others in one of their products so that if it didn't go back in the correct place the six or so other tiny bit longer screws would cut a pcb track on the board below.

To me there seems to be a world of difference between making things easier to repair and actively designing a product so that it cant

That (short screw) is the manufacturer protecting their margin so they can recover development cost and then some.  Forcing them to eliminate such would be reducing their means of protecting their profit.

- Is that reasonable?
- Since you just removed a mean for them to protect their margin, do we want to bear the increased cost?
- Is that fair for every buyer of iJunk pay an extra $10 just so 1% of the buyer can tinker and fix their iJunk?  (Probably less than 1%, just picking a number for the purpose of discussion.)
- Is it cost effect for everybody as a whole?

[AlfBaz]

That (short screw) is the manufacturer protecting their margin so they can recover development cost and then some.  Forcing them to eliminate such would be reducing their means of protecting their profit.

Quarterly Net profit for the end of September last year, $8.5 billion
Yes I can see how that short screw protected that

[miguelvp]

Add to that the repair shops that make a living repairing those broken iDevices, probably not in the billions but they do make a living out of it.

There is an ecosystem that comes out based on need by the consumers that are not fulfilled by the manufacturer.

[SkyMaster]

To me there seems to be a world of difference between making things easier to repair and actively designing a product so that it cant

Not providing documentation and/or spare parts, at any cost, fall under the category of "actively designing a product so that it cannot be repaired".

Corporations do not provide documentation, and do not provide spare parts, solely to increase their profit margin (supporting the spare parts supply chain is less profitable then simply selling complete systems)

A few weeks ago there was a reportage on TV about a guy you had bought a 8,000 $ refrigerator for his house kitchen (yeah, some kind of top of the line refrigerator). A few years later (out of warranty), the refrigerator broke down; a circuit board was defective. But there is no replacement part available, at any cost. The refrigerator's manufacturer said that the circuit board was not repairable.

The only solution was to scrap the refrigerator and buy a new one.

And another piece of "energy star" compliant product ends up in a landfill.

In Canada, the Law says that spare parts have to be made available, by the manufacturer, to the end users for a reasonable period of time after a product is sold. Unfortunately, the duration of the "reasonable period of time" is not defined anywhere.

[mazurov]

Dunno about laws but some things are actually easier to fix these days. I replaced a battery in my Nexus 5 yesterday -> https://plus.google.com/+OlegMazurov/posts/BurS4XqEa2z  , took ~US$10 in parts plus 15 minutes of my time. No soldering necessary, the (OEM) battery comes with Hirose-ish connector.

It's a pity that replacing a battery requires opening the hood but this is the cost of miniaturization. I remember back in the days when people were wearing wrist watches every watch repair shop offered battery replacement service for a small fee.

FWIW, the service manual for Nexus 5 is also available online.

[samnmax]

FWIW, the service manual for Nexus 5 is also available online.

Yes, but that was leaked, LG didn't publish it.

[free_electron]

point of sale eWaste tax on consumer products, to cover the cost of collection and

why does this always have to be a tax burden on the consumer ? impose the burden on the manufacturer !  Manufacturer x wants to sell a non-repairable product : whack 100% tax on it. They will quickly change strategy as nobody will buy their stuff.

besides , i don't know of any product sold that is forbidden to repair , so why do we need a law ? Repairing is a combination of three things
- time ( money )
- skill
- parts

the only problem can be parts. many things use custom made parts. if you can't get those : tough luck. you can't force manufacturers to make those available for sale. same with components going obsolete. you can't force a chip manufacturer to keep producing a certain component solely for the repair market. that is not livable.

[jobog]

My biggest complaint with today's products is not being able to take them apart without destroying something.  Cases glued together, special fasteners, short screws.  I would like to be able to fix items I own but I don't think there will ever again be a time when you can make a living repairing electronics for other people.  A good part of the blame for this is today's consumer.  People will not wait for a day let alone a week for something to be repaired.  Your cell phone breaks, what do you do, you go immediately to the store for a replacement.  Your flat screen quits working, you'll be at the the store and hauling home a new one before the wife and kids can start howling.  Instant gratification is here to stay.

Anyone remember Sam's Photofacts? 

[JuKu]

"Right to Repair" is to force the corporations to make documentation and spare parts available, to the end users.

It is really surprising that some persons are against this concept.

You can't do that without removing intellectual property protection. Dead concept.

[retrolefty]

why does this always have to be a tax burden on the consumer ? impose the burden on the manufacturer !  Manufacturer x wants to sell a non-repairable product : whack 100% tax on it. They will quickly change strategy as nobody will buy their stuff.

 Simplistic thinking. Companies really don't pay 'special taxes' like this, as they just pass the burden on to their consumers in the form of higher prices. As long as any new 'tax law' applies equally to all companies in the same market then it's the consumer paying all the costs of a given product or service.

 I believe the continuous decreasing in the prices of electronic 'raw' components and automation processes over the decades is what has turned consumer devices like TVs and cell phones into the disposable rather then repairable category.

[miguelvp]

I believe the continuous decreasing in the prices of electronic 'raw' components and automation processes over the decades is what has turned consumer devices like TVs and cell phones into the disposable rather then repairable category.

I don't buy that, at least in Chicago or any city I've been at in the US, there are plenty of shops that will repair TVs and cell phones. So if people considered them disposable is because they are looking for an excuse to get the latest device.

Right to repair won't hurt those shops either because not only are consumer electronics already easy to repair, but your average Joe is not going to attempt to do it themselves and if they want it repaired they will take it to a shop anyways.

[Mr Simpleton]

Guess the carmakers are breaking the way
http://wqad.com/2015/04/22/automakers-push-for-law-making-home-repairs-illegal/

And then it is only a matter of time, when other producers realise how much more money there is to be had....

[SkyMaster]

"Right to Repair" is to force the corporations to make documentation and spare parts available, to the end users.

It is really surprising that some persons are against this concept.

You can't do that without removing intellectual property protection. Dead concept.

Where were you during the '70s, '80s, '90s? Schematics and/or Maintenance Manual was available for almost every electronic devices.

jobog mentioned Sam's Photofacts. Sam's Photofacts was covering almost all consumer products.

Intellectual property is about being the owner of the "design". Intellectual property does not prevent a design to be documented. Intellectual property is not the same as some kind of "trade secret".

[mtdoc]

Where were you during the '70s, '80s, '90s? Schematics and/or Maintenance Manual was available for almost every electronic devices.

I suppose it was the Chinese cloners who put an end to that. It's too bad.

[SkyMaster]

Where were you during the '70s, '80s, '90s? Schematics and/or Maintenance Manual was available for almost every electronic devices.

I suppose it was the Chinese cloners who put an end to that. It's too bad.

This may really well be part of the problem.

But then, the manufacturers have moved most of their production to China, which make it very easy for the Chinese to copy whatever they want 

[gildasd]

Repairability is a big part of my buying decision making.

I don't know what % of the population does this, but don't think I'm alone.

The higher the cost of the product, the more important for me.
I usually check for Ifixit tear-downs or simply if there are screws on the back.
Having a kid around the house teaches you real fast the value of being able to fix stuff!

And so far, in electrical stuff, 90% was really simple (worn out connector, bad solder that breaks, bad caps, bad power supply) and only 10 was "non instant fix" (IC's going awol) that need a new sub assembly or a complete replacement.

My latest fix was cleaning the contacts and motor of a hoover, 150€ saved.
Today, I'm going to buy a waterproof Camcorder with my wife.
I'll be looking closely at the possibility of being able to change out the battery and if the power cord cord/USB/Card is proprietary.
If it's goofy non standard stuff that's going to aggravate me later, or make me drag a suitcase of cables on vacation, they can shove it up their corporate sphincter.

It must be able to work with the same charger as my Iphone, Canon Camera, wife's Nokia, Garmin GPS...
And be fixable, once the battery starts acting on me in a couple of years.

[meeder]

Toyota is handling it correctly with their cars, you can download repair manuals from their website for a small fee.

For electronics I would really like it if manufacturers would release the service manuals once they remove it from production.
I asked NAD Electronics repeatedly for the service manual for my NAD 118 Digital pre-amplifier but they wont release it and they can't repair it when the unit is defective.

[Corporate666]

Right to repair is a horrible idea - thankfully it will go nowhere in the USA.

As Zapta said, it's just another case of "I want it and I want the government to force someone else to give it to me".  What percentage of people give a shit about repairing products?  I'll wager the vast (VAST!) majority don't.  Most electronics don't break these days, and when they do, they are so cheap as to be disposable.  For those that aren't disposable, buy an extended warranty or buy it with your Amex card for double the warranty.

There is rarely a week that goes by without two interesting (and inextricably linked) occurences on this forum

-Someone posts about how they got somehow stiffed in buying something internationally.  Whether it's having to pay to return a product, or getting hit with taxes/VAT/duty/UPS-brokerage-fees, being denied warranty coverage or whatever.

-People talk about how the X law in Y country prevents the greedy capitalists from behaving in such a manner as to allow the occurrences listed above to happen.

The irony is how many people don't seem to recognize the link.  When you add laws like these, shit gets more expensive.  I ship around the world every day and it's hilarious how closely the taxes and "government overbearance" track the lengths people go to in order to save a buck.  Pity so few people recognize that there is no free lunch.  I guess it's human nature to want something for nothing, and it's the nature of politicians to promise they will deliver it to the ignorant masses who will vote them in. 

Then everyone loses their minds when everything starts to get so expensive. 

I'm quite happy being able to buy cheap electronics that rarely break and I have zero interest in forcing Nokia to keep documentation on my old E-whatever-it-was phone that I stopped caring about 4 years ago.

[JoeO]

C666 - There is more to it than what you mention.

You will not be able to repair John Deer tractors.  Like software, they are contending that you only lease the tractor software, you don't own it.

http://www.wired.com/2015/04/dmca-ownership-john-deere/

[rx8pilot]

The consumer will shake that bad idea....not a law.

[miguelvp]

Then John Deere should not sell the equipment just lease it like GM did with the EV1 Electric Vehicle.

There are no need for new laws to force a lease instead of a purchase but I guess they want it both ways but I doubt that will hold.

Do they want to lease their products? so be it, but don't sell it and call it a lease!

[c4757p]

The consumer will shake that bad idea....not a law.

Not when the whole industry starts doing it and people who need tractors have no option.

[miguelvp]

The consumer will shake that bad idea....not a law.

Not when the whole industry starts doing it and people who need tractors have no option.

Maybe Lamborghini should start to import theirs to the US

https://www.google.com/search?q=lamborghini+tractor+2015&tbm=isch

So what do you drive, the farmer asks the big shot city guy.

A Lambo, what about you?

Same thing says the farmer.

[mtdoc]

There are 2 different issues here as I see it:

1) A movement to pass laws requiring manufacturers to make available for purchase the same service manuals and parts available to established service outlets.

2) Manufacturers trying to make it illegal for a consumer to repair or modify a product that they have purchased.

I can see the arguments for both sides of #1 - though I don't see how this would mean added cost to the manufacturer (or end product)- if they are allowed to charge their costs to provide that information (which is what the proposed law in the OP stipulates).

As for issue # 2,  I can see no reasonable argument why I should not have the right to repair or modify a product I own.  If not then I don't own it, I am leasing it - as miguelvp rightly points out - and this should be explicitly stated. 

[rx8pilot]

As a manufacturer (small time), I don't want customers repairing and/or modifying a product and holding my business liable for the potentially bad result. It can be a very slow and expensive path to prove who was wrong in that case. That can be a huge cost for manufacturers in legal actions.

What about warranty? If mods create unintended system damage, who fixes it? Maybe the hydraulic pump fails after someone 'fixes' the software when the pressure is low due to a clogged inlet.

There are arguments on both sides for sure but I don't think legally forcing a manufacture to offer all information needed to repair or mod is the right answer. It's asking for a slowdown in technical development. If you want to fix your tractor, buy an old one, just like modern cars. No one really fixes a car anymore, they just replace major sub-systems.

[mtdoc]

What about warranty? If mods create unintended system damage, who fixes it? Maybe the hydraulic pump fails after someone 'fixes' the software when the pressure is low due to a clogged inlet.

That should void the warranty for sure. Obviously proving that the owner tried to do a repair or modification is not always easy.  But that is already the case now.  I would think proof of purchase of a service manual or replacement part from the manufacturer would provide one way of proving that - so maybe helpful in that regard?

Perhaps every John Deere tractor or GM car should ship with giant "Warranty Void if Removed" seals over the hood and dashboard access points...

As far as issue #2 from above, the warranty concern is a non-starter. You would need to prove someone tried to fix or mod equipment in order to prove they broke the law - why not just void their warranty instead of making it a crime?

The real value in being allowed to repair your own product comes after the warranty has expired in any case.

[JuKu]

Perhaps every John Deere tractor or GM car should ship with giant "Warranty Void if Removed" seals over the hood and dashboard access points...

A solution too easy for the lawyers, perhaps?

There is (was?) a Volvo concept car, that the owner did not get the keys to the hood during the warranty period. I would be fine with that. (The washer fill was outside the hood, as it should be.)

[wagon]

I repair stuff 5 days a week.  Most of it I don't have diagrams, access to factory parts or support.  If I'm lucky, I get a connector pinout.  Most faults are bad connectors, solder joints and power supply troubles.  Lately I've had a run of power-on reset circuits for microprocessors... just lucky data for most micros is readily available.  Having a good idea of how things work helps when you need to modify it to use 'available' parts when the 'proper' parts are unavailable for whatever reason.  Knowing 'what you can get away with' helps too.

[gildasd]

95% of people will never open the hood of a car (even to change fluids).
So in theory you only piss off 5% of you costumers if you make stuff non repairable, a risk worth taking?

Well, the risk of pissing off that 5% of potential best advocates can turn on you...
Those 5% are the kind of people a large part of the 95% depends on to make buying choices.

[vk6zgo]

I repair stuff 5 days a week.  Most of it I don't have diagrams, access to factory parts or support.  If I'm lucky, I get a connector pinout.  Most faults are bad connectors, solder joints and power supply troubles.  Lately I've had a run of power-on reset circuits for microprocessors... just lucky data for most micros is readily available.  Having a good idea of how things work helps when you need to modify it to use 'available' parts when the 'proper' parts are unavailable for whatever reason.  Knowing 'what you can get away with' helps too.

Exactly! when you live on the other side of the Earth to the manufacturer,& your customers,or bosses want the thing working NOW!!!!!,warranties are pretty much a joke.

Intellectual Property?--In many cases the circuitry used in the stuff you are repairing is all Public Domain,anyway,or belongs to National Semiconductor (or their Heirs & successors according to law),which amounts to the same thing,as they freely publish the details of their devices.

[LabSpokane]

besides , i don't know of any product sold that is forbidden to repair , so why do we need a law ?

The core issue is the DMCA, which is a law today, and the $1M fine and up to 10 year federal prison time for hacking into a microcontroller that is protected by a password and/or encryption. That is what John Deere wants to impose on those who bypass their service centers.

This goes well beyond right to repair. A lot of equipment must be modified in order for it to be suitable for a particular application. Hillside leveler combines are a big one around these parts. One can't buy them from the factory or at least one couldn't for many decades.

No one should go to prison, particularly hard time in excess of what people get for cold-blooded murder for just making something suitable for their work. Corporations have gone much too far with this and need to get reigned in.

[Corporate666]

C666 - There is more to it than what you mention.

You will not be able to repair John Deer tractors.  Like software, they are contending that you only lease the tractor software, you don't own it.

http://www.wired.com/2015/04/dmca-ownership-john-deere/

I realize that aspect of it and that part I don't agree with - but I think there will (and should) be a different approach to working that out.  That falls more under legality and enforcability of EULAs and such. 

[Corporate666]

No one should go to prison, particularly hard time in excess of what people get for cold-blooded murder for just making something suitable for their work. Corporations have gone much too far with this and need to get reigned in.

"Corporations need to get reigned in" just means costs are going to go up.  The problem with lawmakers and laws in general is that we have a bunch of legislators with nothing to do all day except legislate, so they are constantly coming up with new laws. 

We don't need more laws to reign in corporations, we need to get rid of some of the existing laws that are anti-consumer.  In one way, software companies want software to be treated like a tangible product (i.e. it can be 'stolen' and they want to enjoy a ridiculously high loss figure for when that happens), but on the other hand they want software treated differently than hardware.  It's unconscionable that I would buy a car and it would be illegal for me to put different wheels/tires on it if I so chose.  But that's what software companies want.

It's similar to music copyrights.  Someone can develop a world-changing piece of technology at great expense and have it protected only for 17-20 years at more great expense.  But copyrights last two lifetimes.... what?

[johansen]

It's unconscionable that I would buy a car and it would be illegal for me to put different wheels/tires on it if I so chose.

But it is illegal in all 50 states..
Most laws are arbitrary.

Why is a lifted vehicle illegal.. if you dropped the bumper to the maximum 12? inches, but lifted the frame 24, who is the judge that says, no, that bumper isn't structurally strong enough? are you going to cough up >100 grand to pay a mechanical engineer to say yes it is strong enough (and the crash tests to prove it), and then thousands more in legal fees to reverse the ruling?

in my opinion, software should have a 10 year copyright, if that much.
patents should expire in 5 years tops.

it would be cool to require companies to provide documentation, but that would actually cost them a crap tone if they have to make available everything sold in the last 20 years. so you'd have to do this for future products only. but that wouldn't be fair would it? lol

it would also bring to market an even bigger tsunomi of reverse engineered and poorly built crap.

[rx8pilot]

Aftermarket wheels are illegal? That is a billion $ industry, right?

[johansen]

Aftermarket wheels are illegal? That is a billion $ industry, right?

you or your judge's arbitrary definition of what constitutes a legal modification is not the point i was making

[johansen]

Corporations have gone much too far with this and need to get reigned in.

eh, the root problem here is lawless laws are enforced, and some of the lawless do not go to jail.

[wagon]

I repair stuff 5 days a week.  Most of it I don't have diagrams, access to factory parts or support.  If I'm lucky, I get a connector pinout.  Most faults are bad connectors, solder joints and power supply troubles.  Lately I've had a run of power-on reset circuits for microprocessors... just lucky data for most micros is readily available.  Having a good idea of how things work helps when you need to modify it to use 'available' parts when the 'proper' parts are unavailable for whatever reason.  Knowing 'what you can get away with' helps too.

Exactly! when you live on the other side of the Earth to the manufacturer,& your customers,or bosses want the thing working NOW!!!!!,warranties are pretty much a joke.

Intellectual Property?--In many cases the circuitry used in the stuff you are repairing is all Public Domain,anyway,or belongs to National Semiconductor (or their Heirs & successors according to law),which amounts to the same thing,as they freely publish the details of their devices.

Yep.  I don't always need to know how the rest works, just the bit that's broken.

[LabSpokane]

No one should go to prison, particularly hard time in excess of what people get for cold-blooded murder for just making something suitable for their work. Corporations have gone much too far with this and need to get reigned in.

"Corporations need to get reigned in" just means costs are going to go up.  The problem with lawmakers and laws in general is that we have a bunch of legislators with nothing to do all day except legislate, so they are constantly coming up with new laws. 

We don't need more laws to reign in corporations, we need to get rid of some of the existing laws that are anti-consumer.

I would be all too happy for the DMCA to get trashed, but since that won't happen, Right to Repair is it. 

And since we got the DMCA thanks to heavy lobbying by large corporations, I feel justified in saying they need to be reigned in.  They took what should have been a civil matter and lobbied it into a *Federal crime* with *hard* time in prison. 

Meanwhile, corporations get to do damned near anything they want with the worst-case scenario being they write a check to the government. 

The little guy goes to jail.  The big guy gets a fine that his shareholders pay for him.  If was ever a textbook example of the imbalance between a citizen and corporation, the DMCA is it.