Right To Repair For Non-Technical People. - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: Fixed_Until_Broken
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 17, 2021, 02:50:43 pm
content: Ok, I could use some advice here. It's a 2 part question.The first part is about explaining it to non-technical people. What concepts are obvious to us but hard to explain to random people? What concepts do you think are simply too complex to explain to non-technical-minded people?Second part If you were making content on this subject where would you post it? Again the goal is to reach people outside the circle of electronics or repair. I can't think of ways to post it without feeling like I am spamming. The only places I get comfortable posting are r/righttorepair or repair groups on Facebook. I am sure other places would work I just know I am missing my target audience with where I am posting it.If you find yourself going why the hell is this guy asking these questions, I have made some short 15 second videos on the topic. I want to do more of them. The biggest problem I have with the videos is it's only reaching other technically minded people. I can tell from the comment section on them. I am doing short videos (#Youtube shorts lol) to make them really bite-size concepts to plant the seed. I think getting people interested in small bites will lead them to find more info ( or for the algorithms to feed it to them).

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 17, 2021, 08:55:47 pm
content: How about making it more economical to get things repaired?Subsidies for repair services would be good in theory, to cut down on waste, but cynically people will find a way round it to make money, which won't have the desired effect.

author: KE5FX
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 17, 2021, 10:55:50 pm
content: "Imagine if the hood on your car were locked shut, and only the dealer had the key."That used to work until the automakers started removing dipsticks and adding DRM to car batteries, anyway.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 17, 2021, 11:46:51 pm
content: The problem is that the right to repair faces major obstacles: one is the price tag - products that are less or not repairable can be designed and manufactured for cheaper, and people are used to this. You can consider the long-term cost, of course, and figure that a repairable device costs less in the end. But most people have difficulties reasoning about longer terms than a few years. A related issue is that many (most?) people are used to products evolving relatively fast (even when the modifications are relatively minor), and I guess many are actually glad their devices stop functioning after a couple years, so that gives them an opportunity to buy new ones.

author: HobGoblyn
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 17, 2021, 11:57:10 pm
content: Imagine you have a car.You want the brakes checked.Main dealer costs the earth, so you take it to a good well known local garage with excellent mechanics.They find the brake pads need replacing, but the car manufactures will ONLY sell the brake pads to the main dealers, so your local garage can no longer change the pads.Worse still, these particular brake pads have a little chip on them with a serial number on them, that chip is programmed into your cars computer. And ONLY the main dealers have access to the software to reprogram them.So even if your local garage had an identical car to yours, that for some reason was spare, they couldn’t take the brake pads off of that car and put them on yours as the car wouldn’t recognise the serial numbers hence would refuse to start.OrImagine you damaged the headlight, you go to a scrap yard, get an identical one off an identical car, costs you £/$50, your car now refuses to start, as as far as it’s computer is concerned, the headlight doesn’t match what’s programmed into the computer. If you had access to that software, you could be happily driving in your way.Now imagine your headlamp broke, you took it to a main dealer, even though you can replace it yourself if they would allow you to, they tell you that to buy a replacement headlamp will cost you £/$1000 just for the part.Or they tell you that due to your headlamp being broken, your car is now totally useless, unrepairable and you need to buy a new car.That is the sort of thing that’s happening with mobiles at the moment.There’s also many YouTube vids of people say going into Apple as their iPhones have broke, and they’ve got very sentimental photos etc on there and Apple saying that it’s beyond repair…., them sending it to one of the companies fighting for the right to repair, and those companies managing to retrieve all the user’s photos etc that Apple said they couldn’t do. If the likes of Apple had their way, these 3rd party companies wouldn’t exist, hence the many people that use them would have lost their photos etc for ever.Each newer model phone is deliberately made harder/impossible to be fixed by 3rd parties, not because they lack the skill, but because Apple do what I described in my car analogy, take a part off an identical phone and they deliberately have software that says the serial numbers don’t match hence phone won’t work.

author: bdunham7
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2021, 12:28:50 am
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on July 17, 2021, 11:46:51 pmI assure you there is a large contingent that is not thrilled when their devices stop functioning, even if they might be ready for replacements. Personally I've had 4 models of Samsung phone in the past 12 years, typically not the cutting edge models. None have stopped functioning and I've resold them for a significant chunk of their original cost.

author: Fixed_Until_Broken
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2021, 12:56:30 am
content: I strongly disagree that Right To Repair has a huge hidden price tag to it. Almost no legalization being pushed actually says that you must design a product to be more repairable(other than serial locks). While it would be nice and I advocate for that's not the true goal of most RTR. No one is saying manufactures cant use BGA, SMD, or glue the devices together.Most people who pay the bills are not happy when the device breaks. That logic only works for kids and trust fund babies. I am not sure if you are trolling or just have really flawed logic.To dumb it down into a few sentences. What most advocates are asking for is documentation, parts, firmware, and the same tools as repair centers. Most are not asking for this for free. Manufacturers are welcome to sell this it just needs to be available.That's the dumbed-down TLDR of RTR.

author: richnormand
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 18, 2021, 01:21:11 am
content: Also interesting on the comments that items are not worth repairing BUT many more could be if third party parts were available at a good price without the "copyright" lawsuits.Basically e-waise is more profits for "planned obsolescence" and "booby trap DYI repairs" companies.Here is a good ( not so fiction...) example of where we are going as a society:"Unautorised bread"https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2020/01/unauthorized-bread-a-near-future-tale-of-refugees-and-sinister-iot-appliances/

author: GlennSprigg
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2021, 01:30:53 pm
content: It used to be more a point of 'inconvenience!', like Black&Decker using 'special' screw-heads on power tools etc...But I think most people have all those tool-head bits for all that crap now... It's when things are epoxy molded now!!!

author: Fixed_Until_Broken
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2021, 05:42:17 pm
content: Quote from: GlennSprigg on July 18, 2021, 01:30:53 pmThere is an industrial control board I repair regularly. That board has a DC-DC converter that fails due to age. It's just a cap that's shitting the bed in it. That whole DC-DC board made by Semiconductor Circuits, Inc is potted. It's like 1in deep in epoxy too so I can't easily fix that board. The replacement DC-DC is $250 but Semiconductor Circuits is such a pain in the ass to deal with I haven't been able to fix them yet. ( mostly because we have spares so it's on the back burner for projects at the moment.)Richnormand: Copyright law is a huge issue in repair. GM has a product that the microcontroller fails in all the time. GM did not lock down the microcontroller on it. I physically can jtag in, dump it and then flash it on a new blank microcontroller. Legally it is questionable if I can even do that. I know for sure I can not give that dump to someone else so they can fix their device. Its crazy that IP makes that repair so hard even though all is what is happening is the broken chip is being replaced.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2021, 05:45:32 pm
content: Quote from: Fixed_Until_Broken on July 18, 2021, 12:56:30 amA right to repair done "right" inevitably has extra cost in various ways: direct costs (more design efforts, you at least need to take this into account and reject many solutions that hinder repairability), often requires extra parts, then often requires a bit more expensive assembly in production, and so on. And there are of course indirect costs: keep in mind that part of the final price of a given product these days is often subsidized by its shorter lifetime. If the customer can't have it repaired (or repaired at a very uneconomical cost), they are a lot more likely to buy new products on a regular basis. That's just how it works these days.Now what you're saying above, if I get it right, is that the Right to repair, as it is defined at the moment - either by existing laws or proposed laws - doesn't really imply designing a product to be more repairable - and I would agree with you there. There's a similar EU directive and it's far from meaning this either. But that's what I would call a "right to repair" not done right. If it's just a "cosmetic" law that in the end doesn't really help customers to have their product repaired instead of buying new ones, in the end, then it's absolutely worthless.

author: Fixed_Until_Broken
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2021, 06:00:31 pm
content: SiliconWizard: Most of the fight is for documentation which I have not seen any laws to help there yet. Either dialing back some copyright law to allow for fair use in repairs or some requirement to sell firmware for repair uses. I am not aware of any existing laws here. To crackdown on monoplization of repair. Yes, laws exist but are not enforced here in the US as they should be. To stop unfair practices such as remarking an off-the-shelf component or making deals with component manufacturers that prevent the sale of a component for repair.Laws "in the works" or "proposed laws" are nothing to get excited about until they pass.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2021, 06:04:36 pm
content: Quote from: Fixed_Until_Broken on July 18, 2021, 06:00:31 pmI'm all for it.What I'm saying is that it will probably have little usefulness in practice, if people, armed with nice documentation and service manuals, can't actually repair the product. (Also see the other thread...)

author: Fixed_Until_Broken
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2021, 06:16:11 pm
content: I think the problem you have is you can't say no potting because it has its place in high vibration environments and wet/humid. You cant say only use Philips head screws because Torx and others have advantages. You cant ban glueing the screen together because it is superior image quality.I do like where you are going but could you articulate the idea more for me? Maybe I am just missing what you are trying to say about designing the board/device to be repairable.

author: MrMobodies
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2021, 08:36:52 pm
content: Quote from: HobGoblyn on July 17, 2021, 11:57:10 pmI remembered some manufacturers did this with bathroom fittings. I once had a power shower about 20 years ago provided and fitted by a builder. They installed I think a Salamder pump somewhere and a Triton single handle thing that sat behind the wall tiles and had a tap that stuck out. Now the hose was cheap plastic and only lasted less than a year and a half and it snapped so I went down to my local plumbing shop which had proper metal hoses off the shelf which were £15 or so. When I showed them the hose and the manufacturer they said to me none of them will fit that tap and shower head and no adapters are available for them and has to be ordered direct from the manufacturer or their approved dealers (which they're not) and told it's worth just replacing it with something better. They explained that what they have done with this particular hose and shower head was patent the fittings and thread to only fit their accessories so if someone attempted to make fittings to make it fit with other hoses and start selling they'd likely go after and sue them.I think it was £60 direct excluding delivery and vat for this hose and I just used hose as it was for a year.I was furious at the time not giving in to that and I did try other fittings and yes they were smaller or didn't screw in properly.I happened be lucky one day when a local bathroom shop which was selling a lot of Triton stuff but was in administration selling things off cheap and I got that same hose for £15 and I brought a couple more. Now I always check the fittings in these things.That's why I won't buy things like Iphones as I'd want extra parts and batteries that are genuine after the contract or be free to use whatever I want after genuine parts are no longer available.

author: Fixed_Until_Broken
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2021, 09:09:52 pm
content: Quote from: MrMobodies on July 18, 2021, 08:36:52 pmif the fitting is brass or metal you can braze them together.I actually own a few mobile homes as rental properties. They do stuff like this with them. I think the reason mobile home manufacturers build them with weird parts that you cant go to the hardware stores is not to keep you locked in the ecosystem though. They just do it to either save a few cents on each part or to save on weight since they have to truck these things.An example of one I am always having trouble with is the interior doors on them. Obviously getting off-topic of the right to repair with my example but yes custom parts/ fittings in a home applications can be really annoying.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 19, 2021, 09:58:08 am
content: Soldering is more common for plumbing, than brazing.Plastic pipes can be joined with cyanoacrylate, or epoxy resin. I often use both. I apply the cyanoacrylate to make the initial bond, then add a load of epoxy on top, to make a good seal.Check the adhesive/solder is suitable for plumbing and complies with the relevent hygene/safety regulations, especially if it's for drinking water.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 19, 2021, 01:57:54 pm
content: Quote from: Fixed_Until_Broken on July 18, 2021, 05:42:17 pmNo different from cloning a PC hard drive to another one in order to replace it. If you want to be safe, delete the image and destroy the old chip after verifying that the new one works.

author: Fixed_Until_Broken
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 19, 2021, 04:05:16 pm
content: Quote from: NiHaoMike on July 19, 2021, 01:57:54 pmNo, it's nothing like that. The old chip is dead so you aren't putting the same image back on it you are cloning off another board or using a saved copy. Also, there is no user data on this chip it's all 100% firmware. The EEprom has all the user data like mileage/hours. I can't readily find case law of anyone being prosecuted on this but DMCA is where it is protected. I had done a lot of research on this when I first started to do these back in 2017. After you said that there aren't any issues doing that it looked into it again. It does look like there might be some case law from 2018 that at least protects reading the firmware but it still looks like at best you are in grey area cloning the data on to the new chip.Even if its not actually against the law its deep enough into the grey that a lawsuit would not get simply thrown out and an actual hearing is likely. I can not afford a lawsuit against GM.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2021, 07:55:17 pm
content: Quote from: Fixed_Until_Broken on July 18, 2021, 06:16:11 pmWell, as can be seen in the other thread as well, there are some misconceptions and misunderstandings... and in the end, IMHO, some misnaming as well, about the "right to repair" as it is currently defined.Apparently, the right to repair as currently defined, and as currently advocated by its proponents, wouldn't force companies to design their products to be more repairable. If I get it right, it's mostly about providing enough documentation, access to firmware, etc (and the associated right to use them for repair purposes). But that poses unique liability and product conformity questions that I think are still unanswered. So the practicality of it all is still questionable.In particular, and related to what you said, there's a fine line (contrary to what some seem to say) between not actively making a device repairable, and actively making it impossible to repair. It can be pretty subtle, and be certain that companies will take advantage of this subtlety without a second thought if that means lower cost and less effort in the end. If a company can justify using extremely specific parts and manufacturing processes for technical reasons (but then those hinder repairability), which is pretty easy these days with high tech gear, then you still wont be able to repair it, even if the company still gives you a service manual.As to access to spare parts and firmware, I'm not quite sure about the right to repair in other parts of the world, but in the EU, if I'm not mistaken, that means a company should give access to spare parts for a given product for a minimum of 10 years (not for all classes of products, though). Which is better than nothing. But after 10 years, it's back to square one.Don't get me wrong - contrary to what I've read in the other thread, I (and probably most people questioning it) am absolutely, completely and utterly NOT against the right to repair. On the contrary. I'm just questioning some points of its applicability, real benefits and the possible conformity questions that come with it. In other words, it's good, but not enough.Note that it's not quite specific to the right to repair itself - which is still a step forward - and that some of those questions existed before without completely clear answers. So in particular, I think what is missing is a legal frame for repaired products. It's still pretty fuzzy IMHO. When you know FCC and CE requirements, for instance, it's not hard to understand what could differ between a product as made by the manufacturer, and a repaired product, especially if with non-original spare parts. But one may reply that this is not the "right to repair" concern. I wouldn't quite agree with this, but that would be a possible point. Just some thoughts though.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2021, 08:31:51 pm
content: Quote from: HobGoblyn on July 17, 2021, 11:57:10 pmJust a minor niggle: it’s not that Applecouldn’tperform data recovery, it’s that it’s a service they choose not to offer in any way, shape, or form, instead referring customers to data recovery specialists. (Note that Apple, like many other hardware makers, has agreements with top-tier data recovery firms allowing them to work on the equipment without voiding the warranty, should it still be applicable.) When I worked at Apple, we were clear with customers who needed it that we did not perform data recovery of any kind, but we did refer customers to data recovery specialists. So to claim that Apple wants them dead is an outright lie. But this means real data recovery companies, not repair shops that offer rudimentary data recovery services. For truly important data, the latter are much too risky.Commingling the issues of repair vs. data recovery (to which I will add that hardware-level data recovery should never, ever be considered a “repair”: you get it running to where you can recover the data, then you move it to a new device) is quite disingenuous.When a company tells you an item is “beyond repair”, what is often meant is that it is beyond economical repair within their service framework. Sure, you could theoretically pay Apple to replace the screen, housing, battery, and boards in a busted-up iPhone, but it’d cost more than buying a new one. I can tell you from firsthand experience that one issue is also customers who hear what they want to hear, not what was actually said. So when an Apple employee tells them “we don’t offer this service”, some customers hear “we can’t do this service”, even though that’s not what was said. Another layer of confusion is that the stores can’t do everything, even if it’s something theoretically within the realm of the possible: an employee saying “we can’t do this” (meaning “we” the store and its employees ) could be perfectly true, whether it be due to policy, staffing, facilities, etc. Apple stores don’t have microsoldering equipment, so even if they wanted to, they very much are not capable of offering that service.What this all boils down to is that I think every company has the right to decide what services they do and do not choose to offer, outside of legal obligations like warranty fulfillment. Apple (like every computer maker, I strongly suspect) chooses not to offer component-level repairs to customers. That indie shops choose to offer that service, and make it work for them financially, is fine and dandy, but it doesn’t make for a strong argument that Apple should be offering it, since there are many factors that play into that business decision (like the massively steeper training learning curve). Getting mad at Apple for not offering component-level repairs at their stores is kinda like getting mad at McDonald’s for not hand-making the ketchup daily at their stores: it’s damned hard to scale up, and it simply doesn’t fit their business model. Apple and McDonald’s may be on opposite ends of the luxury spectrum, but the scale at which they operate is broadly similar.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2021, 11:31:55 pm
content: apple does not want to pay skilled repair people, its not a technology or difficulty problem, its a financial problem.who knows how profitable a repair department would be after operating for a few years. it might make money but less money then bricking things. its probobly discouragedsomeone could have made a business decisions that says 'we wont even investigate repair efficiency and as a company we decided to keep it artificially low to foster profits'this is possible with a budgettry doing fast repair if the company did not even try to get the engineers to generate a good repair/test flow chart. All you need to do is make a substandard and noncreative flow chart and the evaluation will say 'its not feasible to repair this within our budget'. Probably the easiest book to cook. Half of it can come down to someones refusal to add test points to critical locations of the PCB. I have personally seen people fighting against adding probe points. Try getting a bed of nails tester made. And gut feelings about 'glue and tape being better' without actually doing the legwork to do a proper comparison to looking at a modular construction. If you do the cost analysis the results may be surprising despite what the cost gurus shoot off the hip. If you follow half baked management advise all the time you will get a real stinker. Repair departments are kept in the fucking dark ages. Engineering will have a $2000 dollar regulated iron and repair will have a direct to plug in wall so they can solder a crimp back together when no one is looking lol

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 21, 2021, 02:24:32 am
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on July 17, 2021, 11:46:51 pmThis is an absolute load of garbage.The CORE arguments of right to repair do NOT impinge on a manufacturer's right to build a device any way they want. Even the serialisation bullshit is manageable - if the ability to do the appropriate programming is available.QuoteThat's a societal acclimatisation to planned obsolescence - the manufacturers are winning. This might be OK for people who can afford it, but not everyone can.Quote from: SiliconWizard on July 20, 2021, 07:55:17 pmThere is also a LOT of bullshit and misdirectionQuoteCorrect!QuoteNo, no, no, no, no. Right to repair legislation does not have to -and should not- address issues that are already covered by the existing regulations, practices and precedents.Quote"Impossible" to repair is a huge challenge. How many things do you know that are impossible to repair?Certainly, things can bemore difficultto repair, requiring higher end equipment - such as a BGA rework - but you can and do have repairers with that sort of equipment. Such things may be "impossible" for a numpty or a novice, but there is a wide spectrum of repair capabilities that CAN perform such high level repair work.QuoteThat is a call to be made by a repairer who knows their capabilities - as long as the manufacturer does not prevent them from accessing the parts and/or the tools to make a repair.QuoteThe essence of right to repair does not insist on a manufacturer providing parts - just to NOT BLOCK ACCESS to parts. Let someone else carry the inventory, based on their assessment of the potential of doing so. Let themarketdictate supply and demand.QuoteAs I said above, there is no need to look at areas outside of the specific scope of right to repair. The FCC (in the US) and similar organisations around the world already have the power to deal with EMC issues; Consumer protection laws abound across the globe and a repairer's reputation will soon sort the cream from the sediment.Repairs are already being doneand they are only as good as the skill and ingenuity of those working on those items - but it repairers get the right parts, right documentation and right tools, they will be able to do a better job!QuoteIt isn't.QuoteI understand your point - but it would be very dangerous to start including issues related to FCC, CE, Consumer Protection, etc. areas. Those areas already have legislation in place and to double up in a separate (even if related) piece of legislation risks everything from confusion to contradiction. That is a legal mess that even the legislators would know about and want to steer clear.

author: GlennSprigg
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 21, 2021, 11:53:20 am
content: 'Brumby' had aSoapBoxmoment...Only joking mate!!!

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 21, 2021, 12:37:35 pm
content: You'll keep.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 21, 2021, 05:10:16 pm
content: Quote from: Brumby on July 21, 2021, 02:24:32 amI think you're going on a loop with this. Must be tickling something.At least try and read what people say. Take all points and ponder. As I mentioned, even if a given manufacturer doesn't take any particular step to help repairability, they'll still need to make some documentation, firmware, possibly firmware programming software and tools, etc, available. This has a cost. If you think just releasing technical documentation fit for external use has no cost for a company, you probably have never been involved with this in any. I think you wouldn't believe how "not fit for external consumption" most internal docs and tools are in the average company, even the big ones. That was for the direct costs.But then I also mentioned indirect costs. I said that part of the price of current products is subsidized by their relatively short lifetime. This is obvious. If you think prices wouldn't change if customers ended up buying fewer new products, you probably live in a fantasy world.Now if you think this would have no impact on this at all because, statistically, very few customers would actually have their products repaired, then it's a fair point, but you're missing the big picture. Do you think both companies and governments will bother for addressing just a marginal percentage of products and consumers in the end?And I don't get why you would get all worked up with this. As I said, I'm all for this. I'm just being realistic. I just do know for it to have any real impact, it would have consequences. Such as price increase. And I for one am perfectly ready to pay more for a product that I can repair. I have zero problem with this as long as it doesn't, OTOH, becomes a way to milk the cow.Quote from: Brumby on July 21, 2021, 02:24:32 amIt's absolutely zero challenge. A huge number of things are almost impossible to repair. Any use of custom parts - if said custom parts are not available to buy, or not anymore - any use of specific processes. If there's a chip on board (COB), try replacing it. Even something as mundane as underfilling BGAs. Try *successfully* reworking a BGAs with underfill (fortunately - or not, for reliability reasons - most products out there don't use underfilling on BGAs, but that's not something particulary bizarre either.) There are so many examples.I'm sorry, but designing a product to give anyone a fair chance of repairing - even if not excessively going out of your way- it usually takes effort. It's absolutely not a given.Quote from: Brumby on July 21, 2021, 02:24:32 amI get it that people pushing the right to repair absolutely do not want related issues to be mixed in. I'm just saying that yes, conformity of repaired products is a legal mess, and this will have to be addressed sooner or later, and is unfortunately likely to hinder the right to repair in some way. So I understand that you'd want that to be ignored for as long as possible. But, if a significant fraction of sold products eventually become repaired, the question will inevitably be raised. It's all a matter of being under the radar or not...I'm again all for a right to repair, preferrably one that is applicable and realistic. I must say I'm a bit surprised by the reactions this topic seem to trigger, making discussing it difficult unless you just blindly promote it. I wasn't expecting this. This is interesting.

author: bdunham7
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 21, 2021, 05:48:59 pm
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on July 21, 2021, 05:10:16 pmThe issue of 'conformity' of repaired products is not a legal mess nor is it a new subject. Just look at the automotive industry for many good examples. Moving on to anything that can be efficiently disassembled and reassembled, what is so different about a repair tech doing the assembly vs a production line employee? In neither case is there always conformity testing of the specific units--the conformity is often dependent on correct assembly. Where further testing is deemed necessary for every unit--say hi-pot, calibration or the like--then the repair process can and should include those.Right to repair and your 'conformity' concerns are not antagonistic concepts. Yes, if you give some idiot the secret key to the calibration menu, they may make a mess. But in general, having access to correct information and parts leads tobetterrepair results, not worse. And allowing more people to participate results in better repair availability and outcomes because the OEM often doesn't have the perfect repair strategies and parts stocks in place when they release the product. Later, if an issue crops up, those repair procedures, and often the parts supplies, are then developed according to need. If the OEM doesn't want to step up and do that, then R2R may give the aftermarket a chance to do so. And even fairly drastic steps like requiring a certain level of technical uniformity (OBD II for automotive, e.g.) has not increased the cost of products--it more likely has reduced them.

author: KE5FX
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 21, 2021, 10:49:50 pm
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on July 21, 2021, 05:10:16 pmThe thing is, even the most productive engineer in the world buys a hundred products for every one he or she creates. Once you grasp this truth, you can see how it's in everyone's interest, including ours, to keep the proprietary-rights pendulum from swinging any farther in the manufacturers' favor.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 21, 2021, 10:58:52 pm
content: Here in the US electronics manufacturers have been lamenting the alleged low profit margins for years, and its clear that some are really trying hard to take their old products off the market, so people dont repair them, they want them to buy new Basically their incomes are getting squeezed as their customers incomes are getting squeezed. I think this is predictable and also poetic justice. So we need a right to repair or they will just make it worse and worse. I remember when back in the day some machines like copiers ere sold with a built in counter that disabled them after a certain number of copies. This is planned obsolescence. And it should be illegal.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 23, 2021, 12:23:31 pm
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on July 21, 2021, 05:10:16 pm... and pay attention to what you, yourself have written...QuoteThat is not the focus of what youdidsay - at least I don't think so.However, I ask - just how muchisthis cost impact to a manufacturer? More importantly - what is the ultimate impact on the consumer? This is what truly matters. As everyone should know, the customer always pays for everything - and, if they have to add in an extra couple of dollars when they buy something that will have a chance of being repaired, then I think that will be an easy sell. In fact, any half-decent marketing group would run that up the flagpole and see how many salute!

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 23, 2021, 12:24:45 pm
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on July 21, 2021, 05:10:16 pmI might be looping - but my aim is to separate what Right To Repairisandwhat it isnot.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 23, 2021, 12:38:07 pm
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on July 21, 2021, 05:10:16 pmQuoteRight To Repair does not require a manufacturer to design a product that way. This is a false argument. It is entirely irrelevant to the fundamental of Right To Repair.Where pressure may come in this direction, is from the market. Once consumers are awakened to the possibility of repair, then it will become a market advantage for a manufacturer to do as you have indicated. This will be an emerging follow-on effect.This is another example of why I'm chiming in so much. There are so many arguments being tossed around that are not core issues in the pursuit of Right To Repair. They are secondary, incidental, subsequent or, in some cases, irrelevant altogether.For example: All the noise about privacy, security and consumer protection have ZERO place in Right To Repair legislation. They are covered inotherlegislation and to even think of putting anything into Right To Repair legislation is inappropriate ... and legally dangerous.

author: Red Squirrel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2021, 01:55:51 pm
content: The car analogies are good to use. But it even works with phones. Tell them that if they were to drop their phone and the screen cracks, they have no choice but to buy a whole new phone because it is illegal for a 3rd party to fix it, and the vendor that sold you the phone (ex Apple or Google) is not willing to fix it or is going to charge you a ridiculous price. With right to repair it allows 3rd party repair shops to be allowed to fix stuff.Can also say that it's better for the environment as things get fixed instead of thrown out.

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2021, 02:12:10 pm
content: At its core R2R is simply 3rd party repair shops saying..."We will take on the task of figuring out exactly how to disassemble and repair devices. However parts, schematics and any tools needed to make replacement parts re-sync must all be purchasable at a fair price"

author: Fixed_Until_Broken
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2021, 07:36:10 pm
content: Quote from: Brumby on July 23, 2021, 12:24:45 pmI think you are making a really good point. We fall off-topic just like I mentioned in the other thread going right now. It is important for people to help steer the topic back on topic. The discussion should really be about what right to repair is not what some of us may wish it to be about. That only stirs up confusion and I will take personal note of that to help keep myself on the topic in future discussions/ videos.What is funny is no one has been on the topic at all of this thread. The questions were about talking to non-technical people. how to get the masses interested is what I am going for here.