Right to repair, my problem with it - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: robint91
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2021, 12:53:59 pm
content: I think that people are overlooking a few aspects of the whole right to repair legislation. I see two big asterisks in the whole discussion.The first one is "product conformity" and how much repair can deviate from the original design. I know that it takes very very little modifications to a design to invalidate any EMC/Intended radiator/Safety/... test for FCC/UL and CE. The producer has to be sure that every product he makes is exactly the same as the one which is tested. He is liable if it doesn't adhere to the same standards. So they have meticulously create internal assembly guidelines on how to create the exact same product, how to open/close the enclosure, how to apply shielding tape,... Just to ensure "product conformity".How can somebody without proper training do this correctly? And this training is not about if they can replace a SMD resistor or do rework on super small BGA component, that doesn't matter. The only thing that matters if the repairs happens accordingly to the same way a new product is assembled. A repair guy can be very skilled at dissembling and reassembling a laptop, but the main idea here is, did he used the same methodology as they did in the production line? Must that repair guy guarantee "product conformity"? Or is the original producer still liable for the product conformity when a third-party repair has happened?In my honest opinion the answers to these two last question is: Yes who repairs a product needs to guarantee conformity and he will also be liable if it isn't, No because I as producer doesn't trust that third-party repair. Legislation can't force me to trust nay third-party repair shop that is going to mess with my products. I don't want to take that RISK. If this is true, and I as original manufacture can be hold liable for a nonconformity problem after a third-party repair shop bodged a very low quality repair.The main questions are, "How much can we deviate from the original tested product such that it still is the same product when viewed from the FCC and CE documents?" and "Who is liable if after a repair the product isn't confirm anymore?"My experience is that changing footprint compatible components is already borderline, and sometimes requires retesting. Nobody wants to take that risk.For example, this repair by one of the employees of Louis Rossmann, how can this repaired laptop the be the same as the original ones, so the same FCC testing documents still hold? I see 8 new added antennas. Did he tested that laptop for the particular EMC standard in which the original laptop adhered? What about the intended radiators inside of it? Is it still in spec with the original standard. I don't know, Louis Rossmann doesn't know. Or does he test every Laptop for the same standard as which Apple did in a FCC/UL certified measurement setup?Source:Does anybody here want to take this risk to put in on paper that this fixed doesn't have impact on the EMC and EMI performance of that laptop? And also face the consequences(which can be severe) when it does have negative impact?Or do we want year checkups of all our electronic device, the same way we do for our Car's in the annual vehicle safety inspection? A yearly EMC inspection?Second issue I have is with the statement that components should be available to the public. For example in this videothat ISL9240 is a customized design for Apple. Apple invested in that part, why should Apple sell you that part? So you can try to repair it and bring it out of conformity and make a whole lot of legal mess when something bad happens after that repair. Also that design or specification to that design is intellectual property of Apple, why should it be open for everyone?Or are we going to ask TSMC or Samsung for Apple M1 chip or Nvidia GPU chip to repair a board?That this happens is just NORMAL way of doing business. I design and manufacture boards for a customer, and a customer of my costumer comes directly to me for a replacement board, should I sell it to him? Is it my place to sell a board where I don't have the intellectual property anymore? If I did this and my customer knows about it, I would a serious court case against me, with a very slim chance in winning. Same applies to Intersil. If the original customer, which hold the IP, doesn't want to sell the board, then it is too bad I can't help you.If I will be legally forced to sell those boards to customers the value of doing design work and contract manufacturing will drop. I think this will render most "Do not compete" void.These are just some ramblings, but I find this the two major holes in the whole right-to-repair movement. If you can plug these two, it would make the case stronger. But I don't think that this is very easy. Any legislation trying to counter these will bringing unwanted side effects.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 18, 2021, 01:02:02 pm
content: Lack of original components and service instructions/schematics does not prevent unauthorized repairs from happening. It only makes them more dodgy.QuoteIMHO USA fucked over itself and the rest of the world by its overzealous protectionism of IP to the point that many industries are broken, and things cannot be produced without a lawyer squad involved.

author: pqass
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2021, 03:03:35 pm
content: No one will hold the original manufacturer liable for work they didn't do. The last one in gets all the blame.The purpose of EMC on manufacturers is to stop them from producing millions of EMI radiators. I don't think the FCC/IC/etc. cares about one-of repairs. A few mm of extra wire at these power levels aren't going to swamp-out anything (except AM radio at 2ft). Every jurisdiction has a low-power license exemption for individuals.WRT your second issue...Wasn't that the same argument Qualcom made? That is, Apple paid for chips but not the IP?Well then, add a line item for the IP as well when you sell the contracted chips/board to a third party. Remit the IP $ to the IP holder.If you are a separate legal entity (from the contractor), I don't see why anybody can't ask you for a chip/board if they pay for the one-time engineering, IP licenses, and minimum quantity (batch). Everyone gets paid. What's the problem? Oh right, the collusion is missing! Duh!If you are NOT a separate legal entity from the contractor (ie. in-house, wholly owned/majority sub), then consumer protection laws should govern minium product support period._______________________"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it." --Upton Sinclair

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2021, 03:22:24 pm
content: There simply has to be some kind of time limit. The manufacturers can't stock parts back several generations. If required to do so, there still needs to be a sunset because if they run out of inventory they probably can't get any more from the chip manufacturer. Those folks will have moved on to a different manufacturing process and have no ability to make obsolete components. And even less interest in doing so.The parts are going to be expensive. First there is the actual chip cost but then there is the cost of maintaining an inventory including warehouse space, administrative costs and, in some cases, inventory taxes.The difficulty of actually performing the repair won't get less when we ask for more features in the same package. The alternative is probably through-hole components and a cell phone you can carry in a backpack.So, the manufacturers offer big chunks. You can't buy the CPU but you can buy the entire PCB. You can buy the display and maybe even the case. And there is no way in the world you're going to get the source code or any documentation about the CPU internals. It's not necessary for the repair and there is no reason to disclose it. TV manufacturers went to the 'big chunks' model decades ago. Component level repair simply isn't done. Change the PCB and call it good.My big concern is that manufacturers quit innovating simply because they would have to inventory yet another BOM.People know when they buy a cell phone that it is probably not economically repairable. They are under no obligation to buy the product. They can simply say "Hey, it can't be repaired so I'm not going to buy!". The manufacturers won't miss either one of the customers that abstain.I guess before we take hard positions on 'right to repair', we need a clear definition of 'repair'. Component level? Board level? Replace the entire product? Buy the latest and greatest? Maybe at a discount when the old device is turned in? Said exchange cost will be buried into the cost of all devices sold.

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2021, 03:39:07 pm
content: Quote from: pqass on July 18, 2021, 03:03:35 pmTypically a year for manufacturing defects. Those probably aren't the reason that cell phones get cracked screens or fractured cases.QuoteEmphasis added...The California Lemon Law applies to appliances as well as vehicles but it certainly seems cumbersome and I'm not sure how long it applies:https://lemonlawnow.com/is-the-lemon-law-just-for-vehicles/The requirement that the consumer make 3 attempts at repair and the fact that the manufacturer only allows authorized repair centers makes this process problematic.Figure a cell phone is viable for the duration of the warranty - typically 1 year. If you get more, great!

author: narkeleptk
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2021, 05:06:33 pm
content: My only wish is they would release datasheet or real part#'s on obsolete ic parts.I work on automotive modules and many are no longer manufactured and people are forced to repair original or take chances on another used which usually have the same problems sooner then later because its a poorly designed unit. I don't think people purchased vehicles thinking they would not be repairable or expect they can no longer buy a simple engine control module from the dealer any longer after 10 years.I could see why manufacturers would not be too happy about a lot of what people lobby for on r2r but a good common ground in my mind would be to dump some no longer supported data on their obsolete stuff. They can claim compliance while still protecting their future interests.

author: robint91
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2021, 05:24:16 pm
content: Quote from: pqass on July 18, 2021, 03:03:35 pmFCC does care when I'm selling a single unit. It needs to be tested according to their rules, why would it be for repair different? Are you willing to take the risk of putting a product back into the hands of the customer when there is a possibility that isn't doesn't comply. For smartphones and laptops it could be benign (expect when it burst into flames) but for a ADAS module for a car, I would be a bit more cautious.If that EMI is no big deal, why do we have such strict rules about them. Everyone should adhere those ruleset, repair people included.Quote from: pqass on July 18, 2021, 03:03:35 pmSo if I ask Intersil to create a custom design for specially me and also ask them to produce it for me. Who are you to demand access to that chip? In my view you are asking for an "Apple component" from Intersil, and not a "Intersil component". Which manufacturer it makes totally doesn't matter. It is a "Apple component" so you should ask Apple if they could supply it to you. I don't see any point to have legally forced to sell you that part. Or should we also demand from Apple that they sell their M1 CPU?It is wat rstofer said, we need to define "repair". And in my honest opinion and component level repair has already died with the introduction of SMD. And the repair that happens now is just scribbling in the margins.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2021, 05:32:24 pm
content: Why do people have so much trouble getting to grips with right to repair? We've had it for years and in a much more safety critical situation too. Cars! We have OEM parts and repair, aftermarket parts and repair, salvage parts and all permutations of those and it works. Any and all safety and regulatory issues that could apply to electronics definitely apply to cars. Yet the system works and with comparatively few issues.

author: bsfeechannel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2021, 05:38:38 pm
content: Quote from: robint91 on July 18, 2021, 12:53:59 pmYou are confusing the right to repair with the right to bodge.I can bodge whatever any time I want and I need no laws to protect that right.

author: robint91
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2021, 05:40:27 pm
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on July 18, 2021, 05:32:24 pmBut for cars you have mandatory safety inspections. And those will get more intense with the increase in technology we punt into a car.For electronic and other consumer equipment that doesn't exist. The only thing that is the conformaty when the device is manufactured.

author: robint91
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2021, 05:47:34 pm
content: Quote from: bsfeechannel on July 18, 2021, 05:38:38 pmSorry, but he repairs a laptop for a customer. It goes from "not working" to "working". That is repairing.I have no problem with bodging stuff only which the people using them definitely know what the bodge is and what the risk of that bodge is. A general consumer cannot make the assessment on the risk that this bodge can produce.

author: bsfeechannel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2021, 05:48:04 pm
content: Quote from: robint91 on July 18, 2021, 05:40:27 pmEvery single product that gets out of the assembly line is tested for EMc in the same anechoic chamber its prototype was tested when it was certified by an accredited lab?

author: Fixed_Until_Broken
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2021, 05:48:33 pm
content: Quote from: robint91 on July 18, 2021, 05:40:27 pmThat depends on where you live. Here in Florida, we have zero vehicle inspections. I would also argue that the inspections actually get less intense with more tech because they just use the OBD2 port to do the whole inspection in some states and don't do a physical inspection. There is a huge market for Can-Bus filters that will spoof sensor data and pass inspections.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2021, 05:53:49 pm
content: Quote from: robint91 on July 18, 2021, 05:40:27 pmSome places have mandatory inspections, some don't. Those that do don't tend to check in great detail and just basic conformity, which means passing cars and unsafe cars are far from mutually exclusive groups. Again, people are looking for issues while we have a lot of experience with such a system and it tends to work fairly well.

author: ataradov
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2021, 05:55:21 pm
content: FCC does not care as much about a single modified unit. There are limits to this, of course, in case if intentional radiators, but generally it dos not matter. The same as RoHS. You can use leaded solder for repairs, nobody will fine you.The goal of those regulations is to prevent massive amounts of devices that are not compliant, and possibly can't even function when multiple of them are in a close proximity.Where do you have mandatory safety inspections? There are often exhaust compliance inspections, but I don't even know what that safety inspection would look like.

author: bsfeechannel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2021, 05:55:45 pm
content: Quote from: robint91 on July 18, 2021, 05:47:34 pmAnd you have a problem with companies providing the original components and service manuals with all the information for an impeccable repair.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2021, 06:00:45 pm
content: Quote from: robint91 on July 18, 2021, 12:53:59 pmYou make a very good point about this. Indeed, any non-approved repair (approved meaning repair according to the vendor's procedures, done by qualified technicians, with exact replacement parts, etc) would potentially invalidate any FCC/CE marking. This is a real issue there.This is one reason why (and see the other thread about it too) I think the "right to repair", even though I'm all for it, has probably little applicability. For all you know, you may be granted a theoretical right to repair on any product that's complying with it, without effectively being able to repair it, or to use it once it's been repaired. It's a can of worms really, and making the right to repair of any practical use will be very difficult IMHO - outside maybe of a very restricted number of cases, being more related to "maintenance" than true repair.

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2021, 06:01:41 pm
content: IIRC, my Galaxy J7V cell phone cost about $150 when I bought it back around 2017. How much can I spend on repair?No, it's not an iPhone Pro but for my usage it is entirely adequate. It will probably last forever!There are still some inexpensive cell phones available. Of course, there are some very expensive models as well. But probably not for me...

author: robint91
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2021, 06:02:09 pm
content: Quote from: bsfeechannel on July 18, 2021, 05:48:04 pmNo, that doesn't happen. One product gets tested and all the others are the same because of the exact same design and exact same way of producing.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2021, 06:03:17 pm
content: Quote from: ataradov on July 18, 2021, 05:55:21 pmThere are jurisdictions, State by State in the US, with mandatory safety inspections on brakes, lights, etc. Google “vehicle inspection in the United States”, which details requirements for safety and emissions testing.

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2021, 06:07:20 pm
content: Quote from: ataradov on July 18, 2021, 05:55:21 pmBut I wouldn't want to fly with one! In theory, they shouldn't affect flight controls but I believe the verbal instructions still ask for cell phones (and other electronic devices) to be turned off during takeoff and landing. Otherwise, the takeoff might actually be a landing...I have no idea what a bodged laptop could do.

author: bsfeechannel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2021, 06:07:46 pm
content: Quote from: robint91 on July 18, 2021, 06:02:09 pmCheckmate. Let me repair so as to restore the product to the exact same design and way of producing (or even better). That's the right to repair in essence.

author: DrG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2021, 06:08:54 pm
content: Quote from: ataradov on July 18, 2021, 05:55:21 pmMany states in the US have mandatory vehicle safety inspections. Some have annual safety inspections. This, apart from mandatory emissions testing (where required).In some states they are pretty relaxed but in others they are relatively thorough (IMO).e.g., New Yorkhttps://dmv.ny.gov/inspection/inspection-requirements..and here is what they look at in NYhttps://dmv.ny.gov/brochure/new-york-state-vehicle-safetyemissions-inspection-program[corrected link]Other states like Arizona have different levels of inspection and I have no idea what they mean or what they look at ...e.g. for a Level 3 inspection - "This highest level inspection can only be conducted by a peace officer "..."Level III inspections are required when a vehicle is restored salvage, a recovered stolen vehicle or has been involved in a collision. This inspection is necessary to verify all major component parts (front-end assembly, engine, transmission, rear-end assembly for trucks and truck-type vehicles), and the vehicle is equipped for highway use."Why a peace officer? Why not a mechanic? dunno.

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2021, 06:13:44 pm
content: Quote from: TimFox on July 18, 2021, 06:03:17 pmYes, there are! But California only requires emission testing and that doesn't apply to my all-battery Chevy Bolt!I'm certain that more involved mechanical inspections, beyond emission testing, would disproportionally affect low income voters. That isn't going to happen any time soon.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2021, 06:15:31 pm
content: Quote from: rstofer on July 18, 2021, 06:01:41 pmIt's not a purely economic matter. We're still stuck in a 1960s mindset where we just throw out a phone and replace it for not a lot of money. We're slowly realising that resources are in fact finite and that we can't keep digging up stuff to put in landfills after a few years. The market loves it, but it's not a sustainable model. We filled up the world with crap in a few short years. Repair needs to be normalised and preferably quickly.

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2021, 06:16:36 pm
content: Quote from: DrG on July 18, 2021, 06:08:54 pmBecause they don't want to disclose where the hidden VIN numbers are located. There are VINs all over the place, not just at the lower left of the windshield. There's actually a 'big book of VIN number locations' available for Law Enforcement (only).

author: robint91
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2021, 06:16:44 pm
content: Quote from: bsfeechannel on July 18, 2021, 06:07:46 pmBut that makes you, the repair guy, liable for the conformaty. Don't know if you want that. The manufacturer doesn't grant you conformaty. Without that right to repair is only a hollow vessel.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2021, 06:18:59 pm
content: To rstofer:That’s why the US is still a federal republic. Quite a few States mandate safety inspection, which is independent of emissions or electric power.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2021, 06:20:07 pm
content: Quote from: robint91 on July 18, 2021, 06:16:44 pmAgain, not an issue with cars. You really need to stop thinking in issues and snap out of your mindset.

author: bdunham7
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2021, 06:20:35 pm
content: There are quite a few issues with right-to-repair, but it making up FUD does no good. Most right-to-repair legislation I have seen is relatively well thought out and pretty well focused on what many consider to be unfair or deceptive trade practices. One of the basic principles behind R2R is the first-sale doctrine. Once an IP-holder sells the product, the buyer acquires (as to the IP holder) rights which include using, repairing and even modifying the item. This has nothing to do with other laws that might prohibit such activity for reasons other than the IP holder's rights.Quote from: robint91 on July 18, 2021, 05:24:16 pmBecause the laws explicitly impose specific requirements on manufacturers and retailers. Those requirements are not imposed on repairers, although separate legal requirements often do apply. If I sell you a new car, it has to comply with FMVSS (safety) and EPA (emissions) requirements. If I repair you car, say installing new tires and brake pads, I am not required to recertify it to FMVSS or EPA standards--that would obviously be cost prohibitive. There may be separate requirements imposed on the repairer and the suppliers of replacement parts may also be required to certify them. Requiring repairers to recertify the entire vehicle or device to all of the applicable standards would eliminate the repair industry entirely. Legislators, judges and regulators have concluded that this would be an undesirable result and have made laws that reflect that. I entirely agree with that, despite the obvious issues that can and do arise from incompetent repair or poor quality parts.QuoteI've not seen any R2R rules that would require such a bizarre result as demanding access to your proprietary chip. Typical R2R requirements are simply that independent professional repairers must have the same access to parts and repair information as the manufacturers authorized agent at non-discriminatory pricing and terms. There are often additional requirements, such as mandating availability of replacement parts for a specific period of time and not taking specific actions that are deemed anti-competitive or solely for the purpose of inhibiting repairs. As for component-level repairs, I'm not aware of any manufacturer being required to supply any separate board components, schematics or code unless those are available to their own repair personnel. This is not a violation of your IP rights--you have the right to NOT sell your product. However, if you choose to sell it to consumers, the government may impose certain requirements upon you as a condition of being allowed to sell the product.These are not just consumer protection laws, they are fair trade and competition laws. A manufacturer that shirks its generally accepted warranty and support obligations gains a competitive (cost) advantage over a manufacturer that provides an acceptable (or required) level of support. And relying on consumers to sort that out by reputation sounds like nice free-market idea, but in reality they don't have any way of knowing ahead of time who is going to decide to screw them and who isn't.

author: Fixed_Until_Broken
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2021, 06:20:52 pm
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on July 18, 2021, 06:15:31 pmCompletely agree here. The sustainably of our current model does not work! Repair needs to be normalized and throwing out ostracized.

author: Fixed_Until_Broken
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2021, 06:22:47 pm
content: Quote from: rstofer on July 18, 2021, 06:16:36 pmAs a prior law enforcement officer, I have never seen this book. Maybe only the DMV gets it?Edit: or maybe you made that up.

author: pqass
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2021, 06:27:52 pm
content: Quote from: robint91 on July 18, 2021, 05:24:16 pmThe difference is quantity. There will be orders of magnitude less repaired products in use vs working originals.As Louis pointed out in past videos, as an individual, you are allowed to work on your own brakes and home wiring. What happens afterwards is between you and your insurance company. So yes, there is a double standard between manufacturers and the individual [who assumes the risks of the repaired product].Quote"...ask Intersil to create..." or mark chips with my proprietary part numbers all sounds like collusion to me as they seem to rely on IP that is already mostly developed by the OEM and is being incorporated in other chips they sell to distributors/general public. So I, a third party, should not be barred from buying same (subject to one-time, license, and minimum quantity charges)."Collusion is adeceitful agreementor secret cooperation between two or more parties tolimit open competitionby deceiving, misleading or defrauding others of their legal right.'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CollusionApple doesnt sell their M1 chip or any other chips to distributors/general public. They purchased a chip design house to design the M1 from ARM IP + their own IP and contracted Samsung? to deliver wafers or packaged chips for them. Apple owns the masks; not Samsung.Right to repair is mostly about stopping stupid shit like re-labeling and deliberate obfuscation. No one is compelling TSMC to produce 30yo chips.

author: ataradov
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2021, 06:28:46 pm
content: All major parts of the car body and engine have VIN stamped on them. But I'm not sure it is such a huge secret. There are books of them, but I'm pretty sure they are not secret either. They are there so that you can inspect the car prior to sale and stuff like this.

author: DrG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2021, 06:28:58 pm
content: Quote from: rstofer on July 18, 2021, 06:16:36 pmI got ya - they want to make sure it is not stolen ... but I would still want a safety inspection, not just a stolen property inspection - but maybe the Levels are cumulative so that if you have to get a Level III you also had to have a Level II - that kind of thing.I wonder what level this one had...that looks a lot like a couch I had once!

author: bdunham7
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2021, 06:51:53 pm
content: Quote from: pqass on July 18, 2021, 06:27:52 pmI disagree withrobint91, but you are badly misstating his argument here. He wasn't referring to re-marking, but to a contractually supplied custom chip where the customer holds the IP. Applying FRAND to that is ridiculous.QuoteNot at all. There are two avenues available to protect your IP--the copyright/patent route and the proprietary/trade secret route. Both are legitimate. You can design a product with magic module that has all the IC labels sanded off and then the whole thing potted in cement if you like--there's no R2R law I've ever seen that would prohibit that. What R2R might require is that if you sell a product containing the magic potted module to an end user that is a consumer, you or your dealer supply that module to the consumer or an independent repair facility on non-discriminatory terms.

author: T3sl4co1l
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2021, 07:00:43 pm
content: Quote from: robint91 on July 18, 2021, 12:53:59 pmExactly. This is another excellent point!How can repair people figure these things out, correctly, without instruction from the manufacturers? It's a crap-shoot at worst, and best-practices at best.If manufacturers responded to certain detailed questions about repair, the repairs could be done in a manufacturer-approved way.This isn't a denial-of-service thing. They're big, they have plenty of time to respond to questions. More to the point, repair people only need one answer, and they can share it among themselves (e.g. via Rossmann's wiki).That communication could take many routes: it could be ad hoc, everyone for themselves; it could be structured, through designated channels e.g. a few people in the community volunteer as liaison; it could be formal via an industry group/consortium that collects community questions, sorted by priority, relevance, etc.; lots of possibilities.The point is to have anything at all, and not be just guessing all the time.Nor is this an IP thing. Specific, pointed questions about component availability or replacement, reveal absolutely nothing about the IP. There's very little protectable about PCBs anyway, and in the recent past, no one had any problem with distributing schematics and even board and layout photos. (The schematic might be protected by patent if novel, and layout is protected by copyright either way, IIRC. Doesn't matter how you publish it, or in what forms.)So you make an excellent point. I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that it works against RtR. Such a conclusion almost seems it has to be a case of, looking at the current state of industry and saying "well this is terrible, how could it ever improve, I'm not going to do anything to fix it!"QuoteHow can an auto repair guarantee that emissions control systems work as intended?Well, there are means of testing this, but before these were available in the 90s, what did they do? Well, they didn't do anything, they just replaced parts more or less to spec and that was that. Best practices. The same works here.Maybe they got a bum part sometimes, or didn't install it correctly, and you had some stinky cars on the road. Maybe they were later discovered, and fined, or repaired. Responsibility goes to the owner first, then repairer, then manufacturer, as noted by others.Have you had a product returned by FCC complaint? Are you familiar with the procedure?In principle, a sale of 1 should be tested as much as anything else. But there's The Law, and there's "The Law". In practice, you can have... thousands, hundreds of thousands even, of products out in the wild, without testing. Maybe they even generate complaints, maybe they pass after all whether by good luck or intent. I've seen it before. The first step is typically a licensed user making a complaint -- the FCC has little time to wardrive anymore (they're more concerned with  regulating telecom these days). A C&D is sent to the user. On repeated complaint, the user may be investigated or fined. Only when a pattern of behavior is found, does the manufacturer get notified, and then a recall, or fines or other remediation, might be used.As for actual repairs, stuff like pictured, doesn't bother me in the slightest. Antennas? Perhaps. The wires are low to the ground plane, hardly different from the traces they're extending. They're short, only relevant in the GHz. (I would go a bit further than pqass, and say no, it won't have any effect at AM BCB at all.) Perhaps this would raise the radiated floor a few dB in the 1-10GHz band. It's not even obvious if they'd do anything at all -- there might be an absorber or shield over the location in question.You're also missing something about the nature of this kind of repair -- many of them are "heroic", patching traces from water damage, shit like that. No one's going to guarantee that kind of work. Well, maybe they do, I don't know. It would be foolish to give a guarantee on something that's cursed with contamination and chronic corrosion. If it can't be cleaned up, and it's going to keep spreading, just get out of there -- back up your files and get a new machine.The purpose of such efforts is to recoveranything. Remember, Apple thinks YOUR FILES DON'T EXIST ANYMORE if you so much as break a key off your keyboard, let alone any kind of damage like this. If your alternative, as a customer, is to literally throw away everything on that machine; or pay much less than the cost of a new machine, to a maybe un-reputable (certainly not manufacturer-approved) service -- what are you going to do? It's an insane, retarded situation to be put in. And it's an entirely, intentionally constructed situation. The manufacturers MEAN to do that to you.Probably, a lot of people do continue to use machines after such treatment and repairs, anyway. That's fine, they do so at their own risk. Maybe they take the lesson and use NAS backups (or backups of any kind at all). Maybe they follow through on the action and actually get a new machine. Whatever -- it's on them, the repairer has done their due diligence.One more point about EMC. It can fail spontaneously over time. The manufacturer tested one article and put it into production. What happens to the components in operation, who knows. In particular, X1 type filter caps are made with very thin materials, and are exposed to mains surges; over time, they self-heal, meaning some of the material breaks down and vaporizes, "healing" the wound. After enough time, whole sections of electrode can be "healed" away, significantly reducing the capacitance. They also corrode: the metal layer is so thin, it can be fully oxidized by exposure to oxygen or moisture -- which diffuse in through the plastic slowly but surely. So, they even have a shelf life. All in all, they can end up with very little value after a decade or so of service. You'd think this should generate huge amounts of reports, but, eh? Just seems to be part of modern life, having awful reception in the MW to SW bands.Also, besides capacitors, I suppose stuff like EMI tape might fatigue and break, if subjected to flexing; or EMI springs may not wipe cleanly, or get clogged with gunk.(Both of which can be repaired, if a tech is instructed to look for such things!)QuoteIt's funny because that would actually be pretty feasible... get a LISN for mains checks, a CDN or cable clamp for peripherals/telecom lines, and a TEM cell for radiated. Hook it to a spec -- pretty cheap these days for the couple GHz you need -- and you can do these checks in under an hour. Nothing like the certified lab experience of course, but if you have a baseline, and you have a device that exceeds it considerably, well that's a good hint that something might be wrong!I wonder if I could make a sales case for that... heh...The funny part is, it's literally just making more work for the end user. So, I think not. Unless the FCC requires it, which I've seen nothing to hint at that. So, possible, but highly unlikely.QuoteWell, "invested" is maybe an overstatement. But sure, they customized it, and to the extent of NRE and minimum order quantities, you could say that.Why should they sell it? They shouldn't, and Rossmann has noted this before. You can hold onto all the chips you want.You're an asshole,but you have the right to be an asshole in this country.Securing parts supply is probably a pipe dream, but it's still one of extreme importance to board-level repair, so he will always be bringing it up.QuoteYou're extrapolating pretty far down one track here...First off, if such a law were enacted -- it would either have to grandfather in prior terms like you're working off of above, or provide some graceful means, or remediation, to break the clauses relevant to the above.So, going forward, such agreements would simply be made with different terms, allowing for whatever that law would cover.More likely,such a law would target the product OEM, not their suppliers. They ordered custom parts, so they should retain extra stock of them, or make them available as long as they support the product themselves, or retain some amount of stock thereafter; whatever. It needn't be the 10 year sunset period that auto parts have. It needn't be much of anything at all, just so long as the parts are availableat all, through some means other than desoldering junked boards.They can even turn a profit on them. Hefty one at that, it seems. Or they can set the price sky high, and even write press releases sayingWe DiD tHe ThInG gUyS, reLaX!!11They can continue to, you know, be an asshole, as is their right.Anything like that, would be a step in the right direction. Right now, it's outright impossible, they refuse to release any stock. At least then, it would be a matter of negotiating price.Tim

author: bsfeechannel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2021, 07:04:31 pm
content: Quote from: robint91 on July 18, 2021, 06:16:44 pmThose who are demanding the right to repair don't seem to have a problem with that liability. Quite the opposite. They're confident that the product will be back to the same (or even better) performance it had before it failed.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2021, 07:11:24 pm
content: you know you are supposed to repair those things in the proper manner, if there was serious repair shops they would have the best in PACE tools and things like that do do board level repair properly. I can imagine a TON of stuff that could be improved with the idea that volume brings capital.These repair shops don't have volume because consumer behavior/culture sucks balls , so they can't raise capital for the best tools, so you get half assed jobs.Also don't think we are in some kind of apex of repair tool technology, its just that it is not developed because there is no demand (related to volume), so no one will ever get their R&D back.I.e. you can repair a trace with a floating bodge wire or you can repair a trace with a heat glue pace cutout with epoxy overfill, new vias, etc. The 2nd one is expensive and rare because its like military tech. But so were half the things we use often right now. PCB repair tools are an unexplored market IMOThose repair shops right now are practically poorly funded counter culture run hold outs. try to imagine what would happen if they got big.Think about the 50's. When you had demand to repair televisions and radios, the pharmacy turned into an analog testing center with high voltage component testing machines and vacuum tubes. Right now the best tool you can get in a pharmacy is a primitive cheap screw driver in a blister pack, and its70years later. Someone might think they walked into dystopia had they walked into a modern pharmacy. They would have expected fusion reactor parts.You can't look at what you see right now if you want to change culture by making repair popular, economical, etc. IMO we get 'partisan' (in the sense of soldiers hiding in the woods in enemy territory) technology in these places right now because the law is unfriendly, and business even more so.Without repair, in a modern house, you can easily be screwed for a years worth of savings with just random appliance and technology failures if they sync up right, double that with automotive problems. Its ridiculous.I would say the repair quality is verypromising, it basically says you can fix things even if the odds are totally stacked against you if you are creative enough. Things would only get better with better and cheaper repair tech. These repairs now seem to require a dentist (precision parts casting and x-rays (this one is hard without communal ownership in a pharmacy or something, scan you parts for 3$) lolAnd how much easier would repair get if you had some kind good streamlined part duplicator? I.e. glue broken part back together with shitty glue and put it into a machine that will actually scan it good without needing a associates degree in CAD analysis and make you a replacement part? Its clearly possible, you can kinda do it, but its super thorny. If you had good cheap wax - zinc castings made for duplicate parts you could repair a TON of mechanical BS with higher quality replacements. I.e. stupid printer parts remade out of zinc. It has to be easy though, like an appliance, that actually works.At best the best repair technology right now moved from skilled engineering team to somewhat specialized technician, IMO with UV-resin printers being somewhat the exception (that thing actually worked brilliant out of the box with no work, but its damn weak, but its cheap enough and you don't need to mess with alignments and beds, face it, thats technician setup work). It can go ALOT further.Also with EMC, you can do ALOT better then chase repairs. Try not designing the product so its passing the test by abee penislaid against the compliance trace. Then if you replace it with something a little different, guess what, your fine. Not to mention it will protect your company from parts obsolesce and design changes in the future. That's where consumer law and good engineering decisions can satisfy safety requirements. Minor changes causing huge problems = symptom of hyper focused cost engineering.. that stuff is done by rabid people.

author: pqass
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2021, 07:28:40 pm
content: Quote from: bdunham7 on July 18, 2021, 06:51:53 pmI fail to understand what IP the contractor to Intersil might have in a battery charging chip that doesn't involve a new mask. Binning? Blown fuses in an existing Intersil design? Smells like collusion to me. If Apple wants to keep it proprietary they should pay Intersil for the IP and use Apple design people to add their 2cents and contract TSMC to produce a few million. Otherwise, it should be purchasable by anyone.In the case of a board with MCU, sell the board with unprogrammed or missing MCU, and I'll take care of the rest.QuoteYes, consumer protection law should kick-in to compel the 1st party to sell components to affect a repair for a set period of time after the original sale. And none of this replacement board which costs 85% of the original price shit either.

author: mariush
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2021, 09:01:49 pm
content: Something very basic:A manufacturer should keep a specific percentage of each component that's not easily available commercially as spare part inventory, for the expected duration of the device plus a reasonable amount of years.For example, if a user expects a laptop to last 3 years until it's obsoleted by newer more powerful models, then the manufacturer should have a certain percentage of parts for 3 + 2 years = 5 years.Also, keep making stock for each year until the laptop model is discontinued. ex. the laptop starts being made in 2009, they give it a 3 year life, but they keep making it until 2015, they would need to stock parts every year from 2009 to 2015, and keep some amount of spare parts until 2020 (2015 +3 years expected life +2 years).Let's take that custom Intersil chip that's not available as spare parts.Force Apple to keep 5% of the amount used in a laptop model as spare inventory, and review this 5% each year ... meaning if only 1% of the chips were requested by service companies and people in the first year, then maybe for following year production only require 3% of total amount of chips used that year.Allow Apple to sell these parts with a "reasonable" profit to service places and regular users, for example maximum 500% for chips that cost under 5$, maximum 200% for chips over $5, and reasonable shipping costs - if they bought the chip for 3$ they could still sell the chip for 9$ plus 5-20$ shipping.The reasonable profit would also cover paying for the employees who print labels and ship packages and receive the faulty chips back and make sure they don't just ship back some random chips to have their limits reset.In order to prevent people from scalping these genuine spare part chips, restrict the amount and increase it as needed.For example, a company like Louis Rossman's would have the start limit set to 10 chips, but a regular home user (private person) would be limited to 1 or 2 per week.The company will have its limit reset to 10 or to a higher number only once they ship the faulty chips back to Apple. If they don't ship the chips back, then have their limit go down to 5, then to maximum 2 per week or something like that.If a company can prove they service so many laptops a week that they deserve to order bigger batches than 10, then increase their limit.. they can prove it by shipping back the faulty chips.So a company like Louis' apple repair could order 10 chips, use 7 of them, ship the faulty chips to Apple and the next week they'll have their counter reset to 10, or to 7.

author: ataradov
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2021, 09:28:59 pm
content: Significant part of the issue is also software tools, not just parts. There is no use for a new part, if it will not be authenticated by the rest of the system after the swap. And that's where manufacturer's rhetoric about security comes in full swing.So basically this whole thing relies on manufactures playing ball and doing things in good faith. And most of them have shown unwillingness to do so. So unless there is strict enforcement, they will always find a way to screw you. And it is hard to enforce laws against Apple, there is no imaginable fine that would do any dent in their bank account. And if necessary, they will just buy the government.

author: Fixed_Until_Broken
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2021, 09:36:22 pm
content: Quote from: ataradov on July 18, 2021, 09:28:59 pmAs if apple has not already purchased a government. I seem to remember them buying off Ireland at one point in time.Apple is not the only problem child, they are just in the public eye.I am very pro-RTR IMO the main problem with The right to repair is that it's a big circle jerk of technical people and it doesn't make it to the masses. This issue plays a role in every single person's life. IF more everyday people talking about this I think lawmakers would have no other option than to act.

author: robint91
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2021, 09:41:29 pm
content: Quote from: T3sl4co1l on July 18, 2021, 07:00:43 pmSo repair is all damage that isn't a manufacturing detect.I see 2 options:The repair people have explicit authorization to repair manufactures A products. Manufacturer A checks the quality and is thus liable for the product conformityThe repair people don't have explicit authorization to repair, they are liable for the product conformity and needs to be able to proof itI have no problems with both options, but the consequence of both should be made clear to all.My reasoning is that repair shops want a third option to shift the liability to the consumer. Which I fully oppose. If you do a repair on something, you see that it back to specifications and provide guarantee that it will make those.Quote from: T3sl4co1l on July 18, 2021, 07:00:43 pmHere, they must do testing and report it. Even for gas furnaces, they require a check up and maintenance by a licensed people here. Why can't I do that myself, with the instructions of the manufacturer. Purely because of liability.If a product is used by everyday consumers it should every time it passes from technician to consumer when acquiring or repairing be fully inline with all the harmonized standards the device shipped with initially.That is or should be the law. Deviating from that is unsavory business.Quote from: pqass on July 18, 2021, 07:28:40 pmWhat is the difference, we don't got to TSMC because X doesn't want to sell us parts. That statement you make is a non argument. The deal is done, the contract is made, both parties are bound to it. Making a law that prevents this will impact a lot of contract stuff. Don't underestimate how much of the industry works with these kind of contracts.The only thing you can legislate correctly is that manufacturer A can in its best effort try to repair their product for X years after the legal warranty period against manufacturing defects ends. I guess that all other legislation to further open this up, will have more negative side consequences.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2021, 09:43:46 pm
content: A large group of non-electrical folk who are concerned about RTR is farmers, since large tractor manufacturers such as John Deere are resisting it.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2021, 09:45:40 pm
content: The whole point of "right of repair" in my opinion is to return sanity to electronics and other complicated, bought proprietary technology. Its really gone out of control. Even hard core IP maximalist legislators are sick of all the horror stories they hr from constituents whoose trctors, computers, etc could not be repaired except by the manufacturer at a cost far exceeding reasonable.Now there is finally inertia to do something about it. Otherwise people will be so angry they will voe out the legislators who swallow the big companies BS. No matter how much they contribute to campaigns. At least it seems that is the way things are heading here in the US.Also once software is abandonware people should have the right to repair it in any way possible without getting in trouble.Also software updates should never render commercial software unusuable unless its absolutely unavoidable for a Well documented, obvious and unassailable technical reason.Government customers get a copy of the source code, commercial customers should too. This is why if you have a business you should never depend on commercial closed source SW. It never remains compatible for decades any more. Thats common with FOSS though.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2021, 09:49:31 pm
content: Farmers should band togther to develop open agricultural machinery platforms and agricultural automation platforms in different sizes and types,standardize parts for it.Lets help solve real peoples problems affordably and help Feed the people of the world an save family farms from foreclosure in this era of climate change with open robots.Quote from: TimFox on July 18, 2021, 09:43:46 pm

author: langwadt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2021, 10:01:58 pm
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on July 18, 2021, 05:32:24 pmand in some places the manufacturers can't even require you use an authorized shop to do maintenance as a requirement for warranty

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2021, 10:10:29 pm
content: Quote from: mariush on July 18, 2021, 09:01:49 pmAnd the repair shop will screw up the installation and claim that the replacement part is defective. You can see that coming a mile away!In terms of electronic gadgets, I view R2R as the "Louis Rossman Enrichment Act". I don't see any practical way to make it work that protects the manufacturers from substandard work. The manufacturers will need to add a cost to every device to cover the inevitable poor repair jobs and I don't want to pay for it. It's probably better for the manufacturers to assume they are going to need to replace 'x'% of all devices sold and just embed the cost. Do a full replacement and call it a day.In effect, they already do this for the first year so all we need to do is decide how long a full warranty should last. Three years? Twenty years? It's just money!

author: Fixed_Until_Broken
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2021, 10:17:49 pm
content: Quote from: rstofer on July 18, 2021, 10:10:29 pmSo your real issue is with a person and not the right to repair.You have used every technique to deflect or ignore everyone's comments in here that pokes holes in your logic.You are grasping at straws I almost feel like you are trolling at this point.

author: bdunham7
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2021, 10:19:34 pm
content: Quote from: robint91 on July 18, 2021, 09:41:29 pmI'm not sure what you are advocating. Are you saying that anyone who repairs any device should submit the repaired unit for full certification testing of every standard that the original item was required to meet? So that if I replace the bumper on your car, I have to perform the full suite of destructive crash tests?Or are you saying the repair should be done in a manner that reasonably ensures conformity with the original standards, with limited testing appropriate to the situation? After all, as I believe you pointed out, the original manufacturer's conformity testing is done on a sample, then uniform manufacturing practices ensure conformity of the entire production batch. The car company crashes one car to test the bumper, then assumes the rest will work similarly. The same would apply to repairs, would it not? If I replace your bumper with a proper part and install it in conformity with the manufacturers procedure, it should be good? Same-quality replacement parts and proper procedures, right?What better way is there to achieve that then to mandate the availability of those parts and procedures? Your top post shows what you seem to think is an awful bodge (although it likely is good enough for any reasonable purpose) but ignores the fact that the availability of that part would have allowed for a nice, neat and completely compliant repair. I'm not necessarily arguing that Apple should be required to supply that part if they don't replace it themselves in their repair shops, but I think its pretty clear that withholding OEM parts is going to create a market for questionable quality repairs.QuoteI don't know where you are, but here that is not the law nor is it likely to become the law. Laws requiring inspections of furnaces, cars, etc. are very unpopular and seen, IMO mostly correctly, as supports for trade unions and business interests. People don't like being regulated, but they don't mind regulation of others....

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2021, 10:19:57 pm
content: Quote from: rstofer on July 18, 2021, 10:10:29 pmIs this a problem in the car industry? Why do you think electronics will be different? Why are you against free market competition? Why do issues keep being invented?

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2021, 10:20:41 pm
content: Quote from: TimFox on July 18, 2021, 09:43:46 pmThey may be resisting it but John Deere parts are all over the Internet. I could even find complete engines with about 5 clicks. They're not cheap but they're available.Caterpillar parts are also readily available. From dealers or direct from the factory. There are also after-market parts available.Google has links...

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2021, 10:26:43 pm
content: New John Deere equipment is as infested with software, IP, diagnostics, and chips as is other modern stuff.John Deere enthusiasts restore the ancient ones, with one-cylinder engines.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2021, 10:27:18 pm
content: Quote from: rstofer on July 18, 2021, 10:20:41 pmThe problem is getting the equipment to run after installing these parts. Even swapping out an arm rest can lead to the software locking the owner out. Every purebred American should shiver at the thought of the free market being impeded by one party.

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2021, 10:38:54 pm
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on July 18, 2021, 10:19:57 pmFree market doesn't mean giving away the company store. Brand X builds a widget. Some customers buy it because they find it useful. They know going in what the repair status will be if they do the least bit of searching. Caveat Emptor! And you certainly wouldn't buy another brand 'X' after the last brand 'X' failed!The car industry is a little different. It's pretty easy to replace an alternator with a 9/16" combination wrench. The owner can buy factory parts or rebuilt parts or, in some cases, after-market parts. It's not so easy to deal with BGA packages. Who has X-Ray equipment to verify that the BGA has been properly soldered? I know! Blame it on a defective replacement part!So the manufacturer should provide a troubleshooting chart for potential problems as a function of each improperly soldered ball? All 500 of them? Timing diagrams? I remember the TV schematics we used to buy when I was a kid. Back in the late '50s and early '60s. Then came color, then came PCBs and there went component level repair.At the factory, it's easy. The PCB either passes final inspection or it is scrap. The cost of rework is simply too high. Clearly, the manufacturing process is designed to minimize scrap. I still wouldn't expect 100% yield.The day isn't going to come where the consumer can repair their own modern electronic devices. There may be a few talented technicians here and there but we only see their success stories. How many devices are still dead after 'repair'? How many are deader than they were coming in?

author: Fixed_Until_Broken
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2021, 10:45:58 pm
content: Quote from: rstofer on July 18, 2021, 10:20:41 pmSensors are serialized. I can buy the part all I want but it won't work without calling up JD, Make an appointment, Hire 18 wheeler to haul the tractor to the dealership, Have them plug in the scan tool and clear the code.Edit: all this while the crops die because the tractor is out of service and the farm goes belly up from a failed harvest.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2021, 10:49:56 pm
content: Quote from: rstofer on July 18, 2021, 10:38:54 pmHighly safety sensitive cars are easy but a random part in a random bit of non critical hardware is beyond the capabilities of the free market? It doesn't really add up, does it? The car repair industry is a proper free market. Vendor lock in is an anti capitalist scam. I have seen PCBs being repaired in factories, though I can't say how common that is.

author: pqass
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2021, 11:16:07 pm
content: QuoteI am able to ask any licensed gas furnace installer/repair tech to fix my furnace. They are able to buy individual parts and replace them. I'm not forced to buy a new furnace when it breaks and is out of warranty. I've spent more on a single computer then the last furnace I purchased. My insurance company won't invalidate my policy because someone repaired it.QuoteMy argument was that I suspect Intersil is colluding with Apple to make a part unavailable to third parties so that end-users don't have the opportunity to economically repair common failures in the products they buy. This has a direct advantage to Apple's income.If Apple had to spin their own wafers for everything (ie. keep all IP in-house) they'd think twice about what's really important. Apple shouldn't compel Intersil from selling Intersil IP (through dishonest, non-competitive contracts) to anyone else just because a part is used in an Apple product. Non-compete contracts should NOT be enforcable just like employment contracts CAN'T prohibit you from working for a competitor [in some jurisdictions]. Even Apple can't afford to spin a wafer or take everything in-house for every part they use so don't worry about your future contracts.Basically, if someone skilled in the arts of board-level repair (like a licensed/experienced mechanic) can properly replace a part, then those parts should be made available either through an OEM or the 1st party. Any repair risk is assumed by the owner unless the repair was half-assed which he should take up with the repair tech's employer.As for serializing parts to the larger board, the 1st party should be compled to facilitate that (for a price) since the device is out-of-warranty anyway and the repair is being directed by the owner of the device. Failure to facilitate could be seen as being anti-competitive with 1st party's latest products.

author: T3sl4co1l
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 19, 2021, 01:45:06 am
content: Quote from: rstofer on July 18, 2021, 10:10:29 pmWow...I used to respect you, but this?Tim

author: rsjsouza
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 19, 2021, 02:41:03 am
content: I also don't grasp the resistance here. To add to the set of examples, you can take the appliance repair market in the US (and perhaps other countries): several websites sell parts and have service manuals free to be downloaded so the repair can be done by the owner. If one is not technically inclined to do so, a completely independent third party repair company can perform the service for you.Besides, the original post is talking about cellphones and laptops, not ECG, dosage delivery devices, ABS, etc. Sure, LiIon batteries could be a problem for this class of devices, but there is an entire aftermarket of such products (with a wide variety of quality levels) that still allow a user or a repair shop to replace it - if it weren't for repair shops and spare part availability, the only solution would be to simply throw the entire device away. The liability for a faulty battery would be an exception and it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect it would have to be treated case by case (I just bought yet another battery replacement for one of my laptops - not original as the machine is already ten years old)Also, both my cars were plagued with the infamous Takata airbag - the manufacturer performed the repair themselves and I expect full liability in case it needs to be deployed. A similar story for many other systems on the car that are equally critical for safety: they are checked and repaired by a third party shop and, in case something goes wrong, it would be an exception and handled case by case.(edit: clarity)

author: bdunham7
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 19, 2021, 04:23:51 am
content: Quote from: pqass on July 18, 2021, 11:16:07 pmColluding, conspiring and cooperating all mean about the same thing, but the first two seem 'bad'. If I contract with a company to make a specific product for me only, they have a contractual obligation to not sell copies to anyone else and probably an NDA that prohibits them from revealing any information about it. R2R is not the right to easily reverse engineer. Any obligation to supply repair parts would be the responsibility of whoever sells to the consumer market, not the contract manufacturer. What you are missing about IP is in what I wrote earlier. If Apple has that chip customized in any way--even relabeled--and they take the appropriate steps to keep the chip and how they use it as a trade secret, that is a legitimate form of IP. Their rights don't have to attach solely to the chip itself. How far they can extend this and what rights companies can keep are determined partly by how badly they abuse them. Think ink and toner, Keurig coffee, things like that.

author: robint91
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: July 19, 2021, 06:02:30 am
content: Quote from: bdunham7 on July 18, 2021, 10:19:34 pmMy reasoning behind this is just to find out who is liable for the repair and they can proof if a problem arises in the repaired product that the fault doesn't come from that intervention. Say you replaced a battery charger chip inside a laptop and at first glance everything is fine. After a while stresses caused by the repair influence the circuit (for example a bad connection on an WLCSP) and the battery heats up and explodes. How are you going to defend yourself to all possible claims? Now think that this happens on a plane...If you touched it, you are liable for it. Is that what we actually want? Because this will be a side effect of this legislation, the liability will be transferred from manufacturer to the repair people. I don't know if I want to have that.QuoteHow are you sure that your house wouldn't blow up, due to failing equipment without regular inspection. Do you trust yourself in checking those things? Do you have enough knowledge to interpret the results of such check up?We have so much technology now, that it is almost impossible to be able to fix everything yourself according to appropriate standards.

author: pqass
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 19, 2021, 06:07:38 am
content: Quote from: bdunham7 on July 19, 2021, 04:23:51 amWrapping a trade secret in a contract doesn't make it legal. If its deemed anti-competitive, it's void and both parties will have legal trouble.R2R is partly about access to the same components that sellers put in their products. I wasn't saying anything about reverse engineering. The scheme is to make every component appear to be one-of-kind so the only option offered to an end-user is to replace whole boards at 85% the product cost. And they use contracts to bind suppliers from selling re-labelled chips that are supplier-designed minor customizations.Right now if you accidentally drop your new purchase or it breaks outside its meager one year warranty, you're at the mercy of the sellers service offering. He can tell you to get stuffed and buy another one. In a just world, consumer protection law should compel product seller to supply parts for 1yr for every $200 spent on electronics (spend $1K = 5yrs parts support). It is not acceptable to sell the last product and have no means fix it.

author: robint91
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: July 19, 2021, 06:29:11 am
content: Quote from: pqass on July 19, 2021, 06:07:38 amThere is nothing illegal on what Apple and Intersil or other manufacturers are doing. You can have still access to other battery charging chips. They are not limiting access to that technology, they are not pushing other battery charging chips off the market. It is just that Intersil doesn't have the right to sell that customized part to other clients. Making this kind of deal illegal, is opening a can of worms for other small businesses and design houses.Right to repair is for me that you have the right to demand a repair for a product after the warranty ends from a manufacturer. But that repair isn't free and should be accordantly priced.QuoteWarranty doesn't cover that. Warranty is only for manufacturing defects. If you drop your laptop at day 2, you have created the problem, not the manufacturer. If the manufacturer doesn't want to repair it, it is their full right to do so. It is not that you made a mistake that the manufacturer needs to invest time and money into it, to fix the problem that you created.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 19, 2021, 09:21:49 am
content: Quote from: robint91 on July 19, 2021, 06:29:11 amYou are spreading FUD. Show any right to repair law proposal that says Intersil must sell a custom Apple chip to 3rd parties? They say that Apple must sell it to 3rd parties.

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 19, 2021, 10:28:59 am
content: I'm 100% for right to repair,But I agree there are some issues to be ironed out with regard to right to repair and how it interacts with other laws.I suspect the EMC cert issue will be solved by exception. Where devices repaired in good faith do not need to be re-certified or held to the same standard as they were when manufactured.It is true that this *may* cause a small percentage of repaired products to be outside the legal limits, but i think the best approach is to do nothing and wait and see if this is actually a problem before applying any laws. I'm a firm believer that laws should be applied when a real problem exist not when people suspect a problem may occur.For the issue of obtaining custom ICs/parts I think it helps to think about why these parts are contractually blocked from sale to the public.It's not because the company spent millions on development and wants to recover costs. because the chip could be sold publicly at a higher price to bring in essentially free money.You can argue the main reason for keeping the chip internal-only is to get a financial or market advantage by preventing their competitors from using the chip. But this advantage could be negated by a high public chip cost. And if that's not enough, public supply of the chips could be sold in non-SMT formats to prevent SMT placement. Repair shops just want the chip and don't care if they get a bag full of loose chips.(well, maybe they would prefer the IC legs arrived un-bent, but you get my point)Another issue is the price of parts. A right to repair law does little good if it requires manufacturers make parts available but the manufacturer chooses to price them insanely high to prevent anyone using them. So some legislation maybe required here.I think a fair max price could be set by scaling up the part price in BOM to reflect its percentage of the retail price plus some extra amount to account for shipping/handling/warehouse stocking etc..I think any Right to Repair law should leave the method of making parts available for purchase up to each device manufacturer to decide since different methods work better for different items.It does not matter for repair how the parts are supplied, all that matters is that the parts are available for purchase at a fair price and without any form of manufacturer imposed registration or legal roadblocks.- The manufacturer could supply parts themselves to part-wholesaler companies for redistribution, this option is good for chips that need programming where the manufacturer may not want to release the binary. They can simply sell the chips pre-programmed.- The manufacturer could allow digikey/mouser etc to sell the custom chip, perhaps with restrictions, higher price different packaging format, order qty limit etc..

author: rsjsouza
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 19, 2021, 10:32:07 am
content: Quote from: robint91 on July 19, 2021, 06:29:11 amExcept that they are artificially making those other battery charging chips completely incompatible with the original equipment - just look at the inkjet printing market: the manufacturers work day and night to choke the third party business. This has become abusive with the extreme integration of very powerful microcontrollers in very tiny packages.

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 19, 2021, 10:39:34 am
content: Yeah, there are some serious question to be asked as to why Apple made that charging chip custom in the first place. It would not surprise me if the only reason was to block repair. They have done lots of stuff to block repair in other ways so a custom chip I would not put past them.I've seen people mentioning that the chip in question is identical to an available version except for using a different i2c address. No idea if it's true.

author: m98
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 19, 2021, 11:39:50 am
content: Somehow, all of those anti-right-to-repair shills remind me of one small business owner in the US I once called to get a relatively old device's firmware because I had to replace the micro. He told me: "Fuck off, this is MY PROPERTY, I keep ALL THE CODE in a USB-Drive tucked in my underpants!!!".Uhm, cultural differences, I guess.

author: pqass
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 19, 2021, 12:23:58 pm
content: Quote from: robint91 on July 19, 2021, 06:29:11 amOther chips don't work in the product I bought. They ARE limiting where I can buy the chip that I need to get my device working again. I don't care who sells me the chip. The complaint is that I can't buy it for any money from anyone today. They are gatekeeping (through relabeling, they are controlling access to a chip currently available for purchase) and should be as illegal as other unsavoury schemes to limit consumer choices.No one is demanding a free repair. As a consumer, I just don't want the product seller to impede my ability to fix my own device by whoever I choose. I have never been forced to put Ford-branded tires on my truck. I can buy OEM tires from many retailers. I'm sure when Apple offers an iCar for sale they'll spec square rims (with rounded corners, of course).QuoteI didn't say it should. Yes it may be my fault. Or, it could be 1 day after the meager warranty period.The only recourse should not be to chuck the whole thing in the bin over a $5 part and $75 labour.

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 19, 2021, 01:09:42 pm
content: Quote from: cdev on July 18, 2021, 09:49:31 pmFarmer's associations should sue companies who don't allow third party repair of agricultural equipment, on the basis of loss of production, & hence, income.

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 19, 2021, 01:41:52 pm
content: Quote from: TimFox on July 18, 2021, 10:26:43 pmJohn Deere claim that farmers no longer own the tractor/equipment sold to them they only have a license to use said equipment due to the amount of proprietary software on the systems and say that you can only have the equipment serviced by an authorised dealer anything else revokes the license for use, I am waiting to see if they make that stick in court.The government here is talking about a right to repair law, mostly aimed at things like white goods as most are now unserviceable and spares are not available so if a fridge or washing machine etc breaks it has to be replaced with a new one. To my mind the ability to get spares for equipment is a no brainer and I try to avoid purchasing anything where spares will not be available three years down the road.

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 19, 2021, 01:51:47 pm
content: Quote from: pqass on July 19, 2021, 12:23:58 pmThere are insurance policies that do cover drops and other non-warranty issues. They also cost money.I suspect there are a lot of people who hope for the day when they break their obsolete cell phone and have an excuse to upgrade to the latest and greatest.We just buy the insurance for a couple of years and then, after the newness wears off, we drop the policy and wait for a reason to upgrade.Low dollar cell phones aren't economically repairable even if the parts are free. Labor to repair costs more than a new device. Given that my low dollar cell phone does everything any other cell phone does, it's got to be ego that drives people to high dollar cell phones. They can afford to replace the phone when it breaks.Now I'm supposed to buy an iPhone Pro and one of the high end Apple watches. I guess the total cost is just a little under $1700 or thereabouts. Not going to happen! I hate cell phones and my 4 year old $150 version is just fine.Everybody seems unhappy with Apple. Specifically... Why do they buy iPhones in the first place? They are overpriced and unrepairable. Why not just buy the low dollar unrepairable phone?Here's a $120 refurbished Samsung Galaxyhttps://www.amazon.com/Samsung-J327V-Eclipse-Verizon-black/dp/B07455VT9FHere's a $1000 iPhonehttps://www.amazon.com/Apple-Carrier-Subscription-Cricket-Wireless/dp/B084GS884WThey both make phone calls and can send/receive text messages. I think ego gets in the way!

author: pqass
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 19, 2021, 02:39:01 pm
content: Insurance only pays for a replacement; it values your data at $0. With Apple, if it doesn't boot, you're SOL WRT your data. All the more to push people into the cloud, right?Most people are ignorant and get themselves into situations. I'm not in favour of gov't bubble-wrapping. But the network effects of large players f*ks up everyone's choices even those that are trying to avoid them (me). How long before there's no more headphone jack on your next phone?Just make the parts available based on the value of the product sold; low value product = short after-warranty parts availability.That's fair.

author: bdunham7
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 19, 2021, 03:49:56 pm
content: Quote from: pqass on July 19, 2021, 06:07:38 amOf course it does. Trade secrets, even lame ones, are perfectly legal. Contracts not to reveal them are also legal.QuoteAnti-trust issues are certainly involved in R2R, but forcing a contract manufacturer to supply a proprietary chip to third parties seems pretty far fetched to me.QuoteNo, it isn't. R2R is mostly about non-OEM repair facilities being provide access to parts and service information on roughly the same terms as the OEM-authorized facilities. So if Apple has bins of those chips at their repair centers and replacing them is how they fix the boards, they should offer the part for sale. If they service the units by board replacement, then they only need to offer the boards. Now I don't doubt that Apple will make every effort to circumvent these laws. I wouldn't put it past them to 'service' units with refurbished boards, then send the board back to a remote location for 'refurbishing', which may include replacing said chip. In that case I would take your side and call them liars and cheaters. Oh wait, I already do call them liars and cheaters...There's another aspect to R2R--aftermarket parts. This has been a hotly contested issue in the automotive world--how much information do automotive OEMs have to provide so as to allow third-party parts manufacturing. It's hugely complicated, but they typically don't need to reveal proprietary information--with some exceptions--but they do have to be careful to avoid antitrust issues. If Apple's contract with Intersil prohibited Intersil from making any chips that would perform the same function, even if designed and contracted for by a third party (say L. Rossman Enterprises),thatmight be deemed anticompetitive.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 19, 2021, 05:47:18 pm
content: Quote from: bdunham7 on July 19, 2021, 03:49:56 pmAnd it's bullshit and creating FUD because nobody asks for that. What is asked is that parts should be made available to 3rd party repair shops. If Apple provides that itself, it would be more than enough.

author: T3sl4co1l
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 19, 2021, 07:12:54 pm
content: Quote from: m98 on July 19, 2021, 11:39:50 amIt's weird what happens, when a populace that doesn't own any capital, is convinced that they are all capitalists.Tim

author: pqass
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 19, 2021, 07:26:23 pm
content: Quote from: bdunham7 on July 19, 2021, 03:49:56 pmPeople write unenforceable contracts all the time. A judge will determine if it's legal when challenged.A contract manufacturer may find itself in hot water if all it did was re-badge chips.QuoteRossmann on R2R; it's only 1min long:A product seller can claim they don't have any facility that does board-level repairs. They simply buy boards in bulk from China and may give you the option to buy the whole board if available. And chuck the broken one in the bin.

author: bdunham7
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 19, 2021, 08:28:27 pm
content: Quote from: pqass on July 19, 2021, 07:26:23 pmManufacturers have been rebadging chips for years, for a variety of valid, legal reasons. Have any of them been successfully sued for this specific practice?QuoteAnd there's very little that any R2R legislation I know of, or that is likely to appear anytime soon, is going to do about that. At some point consumers have to use their buying choices to influence these issues. If the issue of the charging chip occurs so often that we're all talking about it, a mandatory product recall might be the way to go. In addition to, or perhaps instead of, R2R, how about mandated warranties or quality requirements? Or do consumers have the right to buy a cheap POS if they want to?

author: Bassman59
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 19, 2021, 09:07:19 pm
content: Quote from: pqass on July 18, 2021, 06:27:52 pmNOW WAIT A MINUTE! I agree with the above, and here's why.Since the dawn of the microcontroller era, back before some participants in this forum were even born, the chip manufacturers have offered mask-programmed parts. Send them money and a binary image and they make a mask and build your parts and they will even put whatever markings you want on the chip. So the part might be labeled Intel or Microchip or Motorola or whatever, with an obscure part number and it's used in a product or product line by an OEM.Or as an alternative to mask-programmed parts the chip manufacturers would offer factory-programming services. Send them money and a binary image and they program a shitload of parts for you and they'd put whatever label you want on the part.Same for PLDs and CPLDs and FPGAs ... I remember doing QuickLogic FPGAs (OTP) that would be converted into an ASIC and the required quantities weren't even astronomical -- maybe 1,000? Oh yeah, Altera and Xilinx used to offer a service that took your FPGA design and made a mask-programmed ROM version of it.And we see this here in the forum: "I opened up a so-and-so, there's a Motorola chip with this part number, what is it?"This still happens today.Here's a question: What was (is) the chance that a third-party repair provider or individual end customer could buy any of the chips I described above, in any quantity, at any price?Oh, let's think about that for a nanosecond. Hmm: identically zero chance, for all known and unknown values of zero.So now there's a big brouhaha about Apple contracting Intersil to make a chip, and Apple and Intersil are suddenly bad guys because they won't sell that chip to people on the street?Seriously?

author: Bassman59
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 19, 2021, 09:19:44 pm
content: Quote from: bdunham7 on July 19, 2021, 08:28:27 pmIt's not a question of whether consumers have the right to buy cheap pieces of shit.They actually demand cheap pieces of shit.Look at what is sold on Amazon, or in your local Walmart or Harbor Freight. Look at the junk on display at the end caps of your local supermarket. Look at how formerly trusted tool and consumer-electronics brands now sell crap. We are literally flooded by cheap pieces of shit.And it's because consumers won't pay for anything better.

author: pqass
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 19, 2021, 09:33:01 pm
content: Quote from: bdunham7 on July 19, 2021, 08:28:27 pmIt would depend if the re-badged chips are unavailable during products useful life (or some part thereof).IANAL but this would seem to appy:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastman_Kodak_Co._v._Image_Technical_Services,_Inc.:"Majority Opinion [of the Supreme Court] {ISO=Independent Service Organizations}"... Kodak did not make all of the parts that went into its equipment. It purchased parts from parts manufacturers. As part of Kodak's policy to limit sales of replacement parts for micrographic and copying machines only to buyers of Kodak equipment who use Kodak service or repair their own machines, Kodak sought to limit ISOs' access to other sources of Kodak parts besides Kodak itself, Kodak got manufacturers of its parts to agree with it that they would not sell parts that fit Kodak equipment to anyone other than Kodak. Kodak also pressured Kodak equipment owners and independent parts distributors not to sell Kodak parts to ISOs. In addition, Kodak took steps to restrict the availability to ISOs of used machines."Apple has also been known for stopping ISOs from re-importing parts from foreign sources.https://www.vice.com/en/article/evk4wk/dhs-seizes-iphone-screens-jessa-joneswww.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/nixing-fix-ftc-report-congress-repair-restrictions/nixing_the_fix_report_final_5521_630pm-508_002.pdfpage 11:"A. Antitrust Principles Related to Manufacturer Restrictions on RepairManufacturer restrictions on aftermarket competition may be subject to claims underSection 1 or Section 2 of the Sherman Act or Section 5 of the FTC Act. Section 1 of theSherman Act prohibits agreements that restrain competition. Section 2 prohibitsmonopolization or attempted monopolization by a single entity, as well as by combination orconspiracy."QuoteOr maybe R2R might look like this: (Page 48 of the same FTC PDF linked above)"2. The European ApproachThe European Union has adopted a number of regulations aimed at increasing consumerrepair options in the home appliance industry, which went into effect on March 1, 2021. Unlikethe model state legislation, which would require a manufacturer to make available to individualsand independent repair shops those parts that the manufacturer provides to its authorized repairnetwork, the EU prescribes the types of parts and time period during which the parts must bemade available..."

author: pqass
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 19, 2021, 09:45:32 pm
content: Quote from: Bassman59 on July 19, 2021, 09:07:19 pmYes they're the bad guys.If it's so simple to runoff another batch why don't they for a product that still has a useful life?I'm not talking about a 30yo obsolete door-stop.Keysight can make a half-assed attempt. Why can't Apple?https://www.keysight.com/my/viewPart/34461A

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 19, 2021, 10:05:55 pm
content: Quote from: rstofer on July 18, 2021, 06:07:20 pmWhat a load of bollocks. If flight controls were so badly designed that easily be interfered with, they wouldn't pass the EMC tests themselves, otherwise we'd have terrorists taking down aeroplanes left, right and centre with radio transmitters.

author: bdunham7
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 19, 2021, 10:14:20 pm
content: Quote from: pqass on July 19, 2021, 09:33:01 pmNo, I don't think it matters if the rebadged chips are available or not, although some other R2R laws may deal with that.As I said above, if Apple actively tried to prevent someone from making a replacement chip equivalent to theirs, they might be liable for antitrust violations just like Kodak was found to be. But it takes a lot more than rebadging a chip and keeping it in house--Kodak did a lot more than that. Just for the record, I'm not on Apple's side and I think they probably have done things thatshouldcause antitrust actions to be filed against them, I just don't think this particular issue that you raise is a good case.QuoteYes, that is expanding the R2R arena a bit in regard to those specific items. It may be a good thing but should be done carefully so as to not cause a reduction in consumer choice or an increase in price. The concept is not entirely new, there have been laws on the books for years mandating parts support at least for the term of the longest warranty, and occasionally more. I'm not sure that having some bureaucrat decide how long my refrigerator should be supported is better than simply insisting that if the manufacturer has the partsas service parts, they sell them to me.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 20, 2021, 07:11:46 am
content: I am astounded by some of the arguments against Right To Repair. Some are pure invention and others rely on befuddling those who may not understanding the basic issues by scaremongering and brandishing buzzwords. It's worse than politics.The equivalent practices, issues and arguments applied to motor vehicle repairs would be considered anything from petty to outrageous. I include all "quality of repair" issues as well.A well-equipped workshop does not guarantee top notch repairs, nor does a humble mechanic with only one old hoist mean you'll get ripped off. Flash equipment only makes the job of performing repairseasier- the result comes from the skill of the person doing the job. This is where a mechanic will build their reputation and, if they are good, their business. Bad actors will suffer. Along the way, consumers will find out who is which.Intellectual property issues are a strawman argument (particularly, grasping at straws). Anyone wanting to perform a repair has no particular interest inhowa specific part does it's job or any other information that IP relates to. The issue is simply that once they have identified that a part is faulty, that they can source a replacement, fit it correctly and restore proper operation.Imagine the uproar if your starter motor died and the manufacturer of the starter motor was told by the vehicle manufacturer to not sell you a replacement - and your only option was offered by the manufacturer of the vehicle and that was to replace the entire engine and transmission.Or let's say the ignition module was the same as used in dozens of other vehicles, but your particular one was "customised" under direction of the vehicle manufacturer to have a serial number that had to match one stored in your ECU or the engine wouldn't start. Is this really a matter of security (questionable in my book) or an example of restrictive trade practices, forcing the manufacturer into a position of control?* The above was written with the average motor vehicle in mind. Try re-reading with a piece of electronic equipment in mind. *It should also be made clear that, for the core issues of right to repair, there is no burden on a manufacturer to impede their development of newer technologies, improving performance, security, functionality or miniaturisation. If a new manufacturing process results in repair being more difficult, then that is going to weed out some of the hacks and only those with better ability will rise to the top. This is fine - just that theyrefrain fromactively thwartingrepair effortsfor no good reason. (Controlling the after-market is NOT a good reason for anything but their bottom line, IMHO.)If you allow parts to be available (yes, add a licensing fee into the price if you want), allow information to be available and allow tools to be available then I believe this will attract more people into the repair industry that are more principled. I would be much happier using someone who was not prepared to do deals under the table as is often the case now.

author: ace1903
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2021, 09:31:51 am
content: I own Citroen Berlingo that developed oil leak in pressure sensor in hydraulic steering. I asked local Citroen service for repair and they need 4 days to keep the car in their premises to investigate and fix.I complained since there is nothing to be investigated, I only ask to replace the sensor, but they refused and wanted 200eur for the fix. Four days out of service was too much for me and 200eur for sensor is also difficult to swallow. One friend of mine said to me to ask in Peugeot service for part since Peugeot Partner and Citroen Berlingo are basically same car. Peugeot service center sold me the sensor for 70eur on my own responsibility.I took off the old sensor and put new one in 5min. Four days vs 5min and 200eur vs 70eur.The old sensor and the new one have same product number engraved on them from Valeo. If Valeo was allowed to sell the sensor in local parts market probably it will cost around 40eur.That is why I support R2R initiative. Give me the spare part list and place where I can buy.Hiding schematics , part list , service manual can not be the way to protect intellectual property.

author: langwadt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2021, 12:55:05 pm
content: Quote from: ace1903 on July 20, 2021, 09:31:51 amafaiu in Germany car manufacturers are required to make spare parts available for minimum of 10 years

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2021, 02:36:42 pm
content: afaiu in Germany car manufacturers are required to make spare parts available for minimum of 10 yearsSame here in UK, dealers get to be the only source for many components due to "proprietery" parts and some manufacturers require the onboard computers to be reset for simple things like lam changes otherwise the item is not recognised and wont work despite being a standard lam/bulb. Many smaller garages dont have the computer software required and its almost certain that the average motorist wont have the equipment, in the past all that was required to change said bulb was a screwdriver and the replacement bulb. Gone are the days where all cars had the same lights and you could replace them easily. Years gone by Rolls Royce lams cost £500.00 for a sealed beam unit the same one as could be purchased for £5.00 for an Austin mini or Rover or Jaguar the only difference was the units did not have the RR logo on them now the lights are made so they only fit one make or model, this can only be so that they can charge more ensuring that you cannot go elsewhere. wing mirror glass used to be availble at 70 pence each now you have to buy a complete unit for £350.

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2021, 02:59:57 pm
content: Quote from: Brumby on July 20, 2021, 07:11:46 amThe auto manufacturer is being told to comply with certain regulations (emissions, among other things), forever and always. Of course they want to know which parts are being used for repairs and they want to know who is doing the repairs. The deep pockets in substandard repairs will be the manufacturers, not the individual owner. So, if the manufacturer provides the parts openly, they're on the hook for the customer's mistakes. Not going to happen.

author: langwadt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2021, 03:46:20 pm
content: Quote from: G7PSK on July 20, 2021, 02:36:42 pmafaiu in Germany car manufacturers are required to make spare parts available for minimum of 10 yearsSame here in UK, dealers get to be the only source for many components due to "proprietery" parts and some manufacturers require the onboard computers to be reset for simple things like lam changes otherwise the item is not recognised and wont work despite being a standard lam/bulb. Many smaller garages dont have the computer software required and its almost certain that the average motorist wont have the equipment, in the past all that was required to change said bulb was a screwdriver and the replacement bulb. Gone are the days where all cars had the same lights and you could replace them easily. Years gone by Rolls Royce lams cost £500.00 for a sealed beam unit the same one as could be purchased for £5.00 for an Austin mini or Rover or Jaguar the only difference was the units did not have the RR logo on them now the lights are made so they only fit one make or model, this can only be so that they can charge more ensuring that you cannot go elsewhere. wing mirror glass used to be availble at 70 pence each now you have to buy a complete unit for £350.I read somewhere that the number of spare parts sold are a small fraction of a percent of the parts used for the initial production, so it can't be thatmuch they make considering the hassle of keeping it in stock for 10 years. A only stocking and a selling whole units instead of a million part numbersmakes sense, since the units probably came as a unit form a subcontractor anyway

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2021, 05:48:44 pm
content: Manufacturers should be required to build products as much as possible with replaceable parts unless thre is a real need to use some special part. I mean whts with some bulb that costs an arm and a leg, does it have a LAN connection built in?When you buy a Rolls I guess you really have signed up for a cash extracting monster, but other cars, the bulbs should be easy to replace.Some semi-luxury cars are also very reliable and economical to maintain. Thats what I would want

author: robint91
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2021, 07:49:36 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on July 19, 2021, 10:05:55 pmThen why are we required to put our device in airplane mode during landing and take-off. Is prevention not better, licking the wound afterward. Something somethingPrevention paradox.... Shouldn't we better be safe that sorry? You can claim that it has NO risk.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2021, 08:05:36 pm
content: Quote from: robint91 on July 20, 2021, 07:49:36 pmWell, it's a grey area. You can't claim there is absolutely no risk, but anyone involved with avionics these days will tell you there is very little risk of misfunctioning if passengers use their electronic devices. The most reasonable rationale for this, as far as I've heard, is mainly for the passenger's safety itself. Playing with cell phones, tablets, laptops during take off or landing could potentially be directly dangerous in case of turbulences or if something goes wrong. In particular, some landings can be pretty rough depending on conditions, and you don't want portable devices flying all over the place inside the cabin. That's also why it's reminded to put your stuff back under the front seat. Just a thought.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2021, 08:07:33 pm
content: As an older person, I have learned not to trust strangers with electronic equipment, especially when there is no need to use ones phone during a legally-defined take-off and landing interval, on a common-carrier passenger aircraft.A few years ago,Mythbusterstested cell phones vs. avionics with an inconclusive result, but decided that in that case the safe thing to do was to follow the regulations and not risk others onboard the flight by claiming superior knowledge of ones cell phone's EMC characteristics.

author: robint91
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2021, 08:23:13 pm
content: After all these discussions the two main questions are in my opinion still unanswered.First, does a product loose conformity when an unauthorized repair has been done? In simpler terms, does every UL/FCC/... testing and certification become void after an unauthorized repair? Is it still "legal" to use that device? What are the trigger points when this certification become void. Who decides on that? (The one who was originally liable for that certification) --> Who is liable after a repair?Secondly, what is repair? Does a manufacturer needs to support component level repair? Does right to repair entitle that you the customer can do the repair, or that the manufacturer needs to provide repair services for x amount of time for a particular cost?

author: bdunham7
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2021, 09:15:01 pm
content: Quote from: robint91 on July 20, 2021, 08:23:13 pmI think they have been answered, but maybe not succinctly, so...1) The question as stated makes no sense--there is no conformity to 'lose'. The laws generally do not place the burden of proving conformance to the original specifications on either the user or the repairer. Those regulations only apply to a new product as designed and delivered, although they may apply to latent defects that appear later. If I buy a new product and then drop it on the floor causing it to have raised emissions, or to be unsafe due to current leakage or flames coming out the side, there's no requirement that I resubmit it to UL or test it for FCC compliance. The laws as written generally do not apply to the user or the repairer,although other laws may apply. For example, it may be illegal to modify something to broadcast more power than originally designed, or to eliminate a safety feature like airbags. These difference is that the user or repairer generally does not have an initial burden of proving compliance or having any testing done, although they may be liable if there is a problem or complaint.2) A repair is taking something that is not functioning correctly and doing whatever you do to it to restore that function. A complete hack that makes the product light up again is a repair, whether you approve of it or not. Right to repair, as generally understood and legislated so far, is mostly based on the theory that the manufacturer (or retailer) does not have the right to prevent, restrict or monopolize the repairing of their products once they are sold to an end user.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 21, 2021, 03:44:25 am
content: Quote from: bdunham7 on July 20, 2021, 09:15:01 pmTHIS! One thousand percent this!!Any Right To Repair legislationdoesnotneedto include ANYTHING that is already covered by existing legislation,nor should itinclude anything that would be better implemented under existing legislation. Found something in Consumer Protection law that needs buttoning up? - then amend the Consumer Protection law. For heaven's sake DON'T add it into Right To Repair legislation!That would not only make the legal framework more confusing than it already is, but it also opens up the potential for inconsistencies or outright contradictions that could result in such legislation being thrown out.

author: ace1903
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 21, 2021, 07:25:09 am
content: Will give another example for other car: Nissan Sunny from 1991. I found 1200 pages service manual leaked on internet. Every chapter starts with list of tools that are needed to do diagnostic and service of certain subsystem. Some fixes I did myself for some other I visited service shop. I have choice what to do according my toolbox and amount of time.I see no difference for electronic product. For sure Apple or some other service center does not have EMC chamber and regularly does testing of each product that is serviced.Detailed service manual that will state that before doing any fix on the device one needs to obtain replacement coper tape, emc gasket and any other part that gets damaged if device is open is enough.As for legislation, all that manufacturer guaranties is properties of the devices at the day the devices leaves the store.There is no guaranties that EMC compliance will be still valid even when capacitors in the device are one year old cooked due to poor thermal design.No guaranties that pollution emission will be same after 20.000 km/miles.One mentioned headlamp example. Nearby my house there is one car service shop. Sadly, there are 100's headlamps each month each dumped due to single failed led. People are afraid that will need replacement after guarantee period that will cost ~1000eur and insist headlamp to be replaced for free even when there is single failed led. Mountain of polycarbonate garbage is generated each year just because all lamps are sealed in single housing.

author: TerraHertz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 22, 2021, 12:53:10 pm
content: Progress towards victory.I take a much more extreme view. That the root of the problem is planned obsolescence. Unrepairable devices are just a symptom of the mentality (and resulting economic structures) that material goods should only last a relatively short time, then be replaced. Whether for 'style churn' or because they broke and can't be fixed. This has to stop. It is a much more important issue than delusional crusades like 'carbon net zero' and so on.A couple of specific things I'd like to see:* Tech and scientific instrumentation manufacturers once again providing full service manuals (including theory of operation, schematics, service and calibration proceedures) with every instrument they sell. Required to, by law. As good as the old Tek and HP manuals.* Such service information should be built into the actual equipment, in electronic form, accessible via a standard interface. Digital memory is cheap and uses insignificant amounts of materials. And in this case it should use permanent memory, not any stored-charge chip that is going to fade to garbage in 10 or 20 years.

author: langwadt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 22, 2021, 04:10:29 pm
content: when people mention "planned obsolescence" it is mostly nonsense. If people replace stuff every couple of years because they want something new, there is absolutely no reason to spend money and effort on making it last 20 years. All you accomplish is being more expensive and not selling anything

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 22, 2021, 04:31:10 pm
content: “Planned obsolescence” was a strategy adopted by the American car-making oligopoly after the War. By 1955, the average length of car ownership had fallen to two years from five years in 1934, as reported by GM.

author: bdunham7
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 22, 2021, 05:23:03 pm
content: Quote from: TimFox on July 22, 2021, 04:31:10 pmAverage length of new car ownership, perhaps? Those 2-year old cars weren't scrapped and their trade-in value was a major driver of sales. There's a difference between obsolescence caused by the introduction of new and better products versus that caused by cheap, unsupported crap breaking in ways that can't be fixed.As for what constitutes 'obsolete', it depends on the product. Often high-quality products that lasts longer also perform better, such as appliances and cars. My 'old' cars are comfortable and reliable and I can live without bluetooth or navigation. My old garage fridge can't browse the web or text me when my milk has expired, but it cools and freezes very efficiently. I'd be very unhappy if I had to scrap either over the unavailability of some small part. OTOH, hardly anyone wants their old bag or brick phone back.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 22, 2021, 05:37:11 pm
content: Exactly. GM wanted each consumer to purchase a new car every two years so they could produce new cars accordingly. Eventually, the used cars purchased by later owners would be recycled at scrap yards as the money continued to flow. GM’s share of the money was mainly at the sale of new cars.

author: langwadt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 22, 2021, 05:58:54 pm
content: Quote from: TimFox on July 22, 2021, 05:37:11 pmof consumers wanted a new, better, bigger, faster, etc. every couple of years and manufacturers were happy to oblige

author: langwadt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 22, 2021, 06:00:25 pm
content: Quote from: bdunham7 on July 22, 2021, 05:23:03 pmbut then a new car is substantially safer and a new fridge uses less power

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 22, 2021, 07:35:05 pm
content: Back in the 1950s, next year’s car had bigger tail fins.J K Galbraith, my favorite economist of the 1960s, pointed out that the lack of price competition between the major US manufacturers was not as bad as it sounds, since they competed instead by technical improvements, by which we made progress.

author: Fixed_Until_Broken
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 22, 2021, 08:52:43 pm
content: Don't boot me for spam but I made a funny one today. I just was reading this thread and was like you know what guns don't have this problem.

author: bdunham7
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 22, 2021, 09:44:17 pm
content: Quote from: langwadt on July 22, 2021, 06:00:25 pmNot necessarily and not significantly in the cases of my car and fridge. Progress is these areas, like many others, is 'lumpy' and some products are way out ahead of others--it isn't a smooth continuous improvement unless you are looking at aggregate statistics. If you compared the most safe car from a decade or so ago with the most safe one(s) from today, there might be some improvement. If you compare the most safe cars from a decade or so with theaveragetoday, you would not see any improvement, quite the opposite.Modern fridges are a different story. If you move up to an inverter drive, that I would concede is a significant improvement. If not, you are likely just buying some extra insulation and cheaper, lighter heat exchange components for a 10-20% improvement. If my fridge was a decade older, or hadn't been a higher-end model at the time, the numbers would all be different as it would be a power hog.In any case, IMO both products are still well worth keeping, using and if need be, repairing--within reason.

author: Fixed_Until_Broken
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 22, 2021, 09:56:10 pm
content: Quote from: bdunham7 on July 22, 2021, 09:44:17 pmNot only that but tieing back to consumer electronics and such. The lack of repair is anti-competitive. Basically, your consumer product manufacture knows your device is likely to fail with X number of years so they plan their product cycles around this.This is stunting innovation. They don't really have to bring anything special to the table with each cycle. Just make sure your next product is slightly better and is ready to release just in time to keep the consumer. They don't have to compete with last model because its not getting fixed and its old news.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 22, 2021, 10:09:49 pm
content: One of the things that amazes me in this discussion is the confidence that the OEM produced a completely harmless device and the fear that any repair will destroy that harmlessness. Neither side of this argument is that black and white.EMI/EMC certification for example. Anyone who has actually been involved in production will find it totally unbelievable that an entire manufacturing run of just about anything has been completed without an ECO (engineering change order), TCO (test change order) or PCO (planning change order). Different organizations have different nomenclature for these, but one controls the physical configuration (layout, parts list etc), one controls the test methods and requirements and the third documents assembly techniques. And a great many of these are done without a re-certification. The wise heads of the organization make a decision that the changes are benign, that the resulting product is substantially the same. Even when those wise heads are totally unaffected by the economic consequences of their decisions there is risk of change creep where a series of changes (each actually inconsequential in their own right) leads to a cumulative effect which is serious.Trust in inspections is another example. As reported by others vehicle inspections in the United States vary widely. Actual safety inspections are somewhat uncommon today, though they were more widespread several decades ago. When emission control equipment started coming into cars and definitely required inspection to keep the air clean many states dropped safety inspections to keep the annual costs of vehicle inspections relatively low. Even when safety inspections were required they were fairly cursory in the states where I experienced them. Fluid levels were checked, belts were inspected, glazing was checked for cracks, brake shoes/pads were checked, tire pressure and tread depth were checked. In some cases front suspensions received a check for looseness. Finally all lights and signals were verified for operation and aim (for some reason it was more important back then to not blind opposing traffic with improperly aimed headlights). Any number of dangerous defects could go undetected in this inspection, although conscientious mechanics also checked for things like failing U-joints, motor mounts, shock absorbers, spring mounts and any number of other potential danger spots.Anyway, the world where the OPs stated concerns are real issues is a different world than I have experienced. Several others on the thread seem to live in my world, and have given several examples. While I can't say that the OP's concerns are totally wrong or baseless, I lose no sleep over them.

author: HobGoblyn
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 22, 2021, 10:21:24 pm
content: Quote from: langwadt on July 22, 2021, 04:10:29 pmI suppose it depends how we look at things.A washing machine bought 30 odd years ago was serviceable by most competent mechanically minded people.They also lasted (well good brands) years.Many new washing machines fail within 3 years, and very often if you call out a service guy, they tell you it’s beyond economic repair, if it’s under warranty and say the drum bearings have gone, again they won’t repair and will replace the whole machine.Often the machines are designed now so that it’s almost impossible to just say replace the bearings, you would have to replace the whole drum etc.I would say thatA) this has been done to make manufacturing as cheap as possibleB) this has been done so that due to how they are now designed it’s usually cheaper to buy a new one hence more sales.C) it’s been done because the last thing a company wants is for their products to be easily repairable, if they have people keeping their machine for 10 years plus, no new sales.We are criticised for living in a throw away society with land fills bursting at the seems, lectured on how much harm this is causing the environment, but companies seem to be going out of their way to make things as difficult as possible to be repaired.Mind you, I remember Korg in 1987, I had a vintage Korg synth (Korg Trident mk2) that had a fault. I had taken it into work as we had very good electronic engineers with all the gear, and they offered to look at it for me for a drink.They wanted to know what a certain chip was and if schematics were available. I had bought it second hand, didn’t have any spare cash at that time to pay Korg to look at it.I phoned Korg uk, they refused to tell me what the chip was or let me have a copy of the schematic, their argument was that if my engineer colleagues fixed it, it was doing Korg out of a paid repair job, the fact I couldn’t pay their price was irrelevant.Ended up giving the synth to a friend as it only made a single noise, they go for around 4000 to 6000 euros now lol

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2021, 03:40:24 am
content: Quote from: TerraHertz on July 22, 2021, 12:53:10 pmAmen to that.Root cause of problem identified.

author: bdunham7
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2021, 03:53:15 am
content: Quote from: HobGoblyn on July 22, 2021, 10:21:24 pmA) Then why are they (washing machines, etc) so damn expensive?B+C) If a company sells me a washing machine that fails in 3 years and can't be repaired, they sure aren't going to sell me another one, ever!QuoteThat is the R2R cause in a nutshell--the attitude that buying the product gives them the right to future revenue from it. I got the same attitude from an equipment dealer once--they seemed to believe that because I was in their 'territory' that they had been granted by the OEM, they had an exclusive right to extract revenue from me anytime the equipment needed anything. When they found out I had simply bought the parts elsewhere and fixed it myself, they actually had the nerve to visit me, screaming about how I was violating their agreement (that I wasn't party to, of course) with the OEM. If a particular company is the only game in town--if you just have to have a Korg for example, then you pay the price. Otherwise they need to be told to just f*&^ off.

author: langwadt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2021, 06:40:03 am
content: Quote from: bdunham7 on July 23, 2021, 03:53:15 amA) are they really expensive, or do you just think they are?B+C) but you believe they are expensive so you are not going buy the even more expensive one, so you will get one build to that price

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2021, 07:14:20 am
content: Quote from: Fixed_Until_Broken on July 22, 2021, 09:56:10 pm

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2021, 07:34:27 am
content: Quote from: bdunham7 on July 23, 2021, 03:53:15 am

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2021, 09:45:55 am
content: Quote from: bdunham7 on July 23, 2021, 03:53:15 amYeah, for us engineers this is true, but for the general public it isn't.The general public will keep buying it

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 23, 2021, 11:21:17 am
content: Quote from: langwadt on July 22, 2021, 04:10:29 pmIt is real and well known - but that is not the point of Right To Repair.QuoteAgain, this is not the point of Right To Repair.The core principle of Right To Repair is to stop manufacturersdeliberatelytaking steps thatget in the wayof making repairs.It is not,absolutely not, about forcing them to make things more repairable. It is NOT about getting them to revert to outdated processes.Modern manufacturing processes which result in products that aremore difficultto repair is not an issue! If a BGA chip is bung, then a repairer might require a BGA rework station - which is fine. The product manufacturer instructing a chip manufacturer to NOT supply it to anyone but them is one of the problems that Right To Repair is addressing. If anyone wants to complain about Intellectual Property rights, then I have 3 things to say:1. Those championing Right To Repair are not interested in thewaythe chip works - they just want a chip to replace the one that doesn't work.2. Put a $20 licence fee on the $5 chip if you need to, but make it available!3. If the IP rights holder of a chip is really worried about someone copying the silicon, then the chips are already out in the wild - in the very products that are sold.In the discussion about Right To Repair, PLEASE make sure you are raising points that are relevant to that specific topic.Certainly, there are many other aspects which are closely related - and they will take on a life of their own - but these are incidental to the core of Right To Repair and not part of it.

author: Fixed_Until_Broken
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2021, 04:39:11 pm
content: Quote from: Brumby on July 23, 2021, 11:21:17 amI think you are making a really good point here.The problem we are having here is we all enjoy a little intellectual conversation. The core principles of the right to repair are so easy to agree with that you easily wander off-topic. I am guilty of such.It is also easy to get sucked into the traps of arguing about points that are completely irrelevant since they leave huge logic gaps in the irrelevant talking points.Such as:- Consumers are too stupid to want it fixed. OK, that's not the point they still should have the right. Fun to argue but irrelevant.- Manufactures are the only people who can handle EMI testing. Ok, but repair is exempt for the most part(oversimplification), and the number of repairs is a very small number. Again not on topic to what RTR is about. RTR stands for Right to repair not a requirement to repair correctly.- Planned obsolescence. That's on them and has nothing to do with fixing it. Got it. Fair point. Not really RTR just an easy motivation to get behind it. I am very guilty of getting sucked into this one all the time.The list could go on.

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2021, 05:24:00 pm
content: Looks like everybody will get their wish! The FTC has decided to weigh in on this topic. They won't actually help the situation but it should be fun to watch.https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/22/tech/ftc-right-to-repair/index.htmlQuote

author: robint91
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2021, 06:10:30 pm
content: Quote from: Fixed_Until_Broken on July 23, 2021, 04:39:11 pmLet's take this outside RTR.Shouldn't we EMI test or some other safety test, just to see that the repaired product is back into conformity to FCC/UL/... rules? Or any reason why that test isn't needed?So if RTR will pass, more repairs will be done, and thus more problem cases could arise. I would say, better safe that sorry and test.I think there should be legislation for independent repair shops that requires them validate conformity for each repaired product. So when there is customer <-> repairer relation. AKA money flows between to two parties.I see the following two cases for independent repair shops when the do a repair,A) They do the testing and validate conformity on their own. They can prove that everything is okay with the measurement resultsB) They get a waiver(document) from the original manufacturer for that particular repairIsn't this something we need to think about?

author: bdunham7
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2021, 06:41:51 pm
content: Quote from: robint91 on July 23, 2021, 06:10:30 pmNo, as a general requirement, it's ludicrous for reasons that have already been explained thoroughly in this thread.In specific instances some testing might be appropriate. For example, when repairing microwave ovens, you should have (not sure of regulations here) a microwave EM field detector, a.k.a. microwave leakage tester. Other well-developed and regulated repair industries have their own well-considered policies. Validation of 'conformity' with the original certifications is generally not the rule, and for many such 'conformities' testing would be impractical--such as destructive testing or very expensive procedures that are only done on one or two examples of an entire production batch.It's nice to wave big words and concepts around, but how about some concrete examples of post-repair testing that you think is necessary?

author: dave j
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2021, 06:55:53 pm
content: Quote from: robint91 on July 23, 2021, 06:10:30 pmDo manufacturers (and any authorised repair agents they may have) currently have to perform such testing on repaired products? If not, why impose it on others.Someone might currently have to bodge a fix using different components, which might arguably require such testing, because the manufacturer doesn't make the originals available/known. RTR should solve that ensuring people can get the originals.

author: Fixed_Until_Broken
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2021, 07:28:27 pm
content: Quote from: robint91 on July 23, 2021, 06:10:30 pmYour thread was about your problem with the right to repair. Taking it out of the right to repair is off-topic.It has also been covered over and overAs mentioned. Right to repair will make EMI issues smaller not bigger. 3rd parties already do repairs. With documentation, and parts they can do better repairs not worse.I am not being dismissive of your concern. I just don't find it to be a rational concern. If you have other concerns I would be interested in hearing them.

author: Miti
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2021, 07:56:52 pm
content: Why don’t answer your concerns using the past experience.1. How many people died from touching an improperly repaired TV, washing machine, MW oven, tractor, computer, car in the past, when parts and schematics were readily available?2. How many pacemakers stopped working, garage doors opened and closed, planes crashed because of the excessive EMI from some bodged electronic device?3. How many people were very happy with the way things were done in the past and are unhappy with the way they are going now?

author: TomS_
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 24, 2021, 07:32:58 am
content: Quote from: ataradov on July 18, 2021, 05:55:21 pmThe state of New South Wales in Australia, and also the UK have mandatory "road worthiness" inspections on a yearly basis.

author: langwadt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 24, 2021, 07:48:51 am
content: Quote from: TomS_ on July 24, 2021, 07:32:58 amhere every other year, first time when four years old

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 24, 2021, 08:19:19 am
content: Quote from: TomS_ on July 24, 2021, 07:32:58 amIndeed!What does it look like...?I'll tell you some of the things I can remember for a typical car from when I worked at a mechanic who did these.......- Oil leaks- Fuel leaks- Tyre condition (including spare if they're really keen)- Steering, front end linkages and wheel bearings- Shock absorbers- Engine mounts- Pedal pads (no exposed metal)- Headlights (high and low beam), tail lights, stop lights, indicators, number plate light(s)- Seat condition (driver's)- Seatbelt condition and operation (inertia reel) - All seatbelts- Windscreen damage - especially within the driver's main field of view- Checking for exhaust leaks- Brake test- Body condition (rust)- Windscreen washers and wipers operation and wiper blade condition- Key (not removable when turned on)- Check VIN and manufacture date - must match paperwork- Visibility of number plate- Emissions (visual check) - but if you stank of rotten egg gas, then you're likely to get done for a faulty catalytic converter.- Noise level (you can be referred for a formal sound check)... and if you have a vehicle with LPG, there are a few other checks.That's what I've come up with off the top of my head. I may have missed some.

author: Shock
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2021, 04:20:48 am
content: Quote from: Fixed_Until_Broken on July 18, 2021, 10:17:49 pmBusinesses that are promoting this in the US have the most to gain. Look at the difference between the EU and US legislation proposals. The US proposals aren't even aimed at the consumer at all, it's more about securing access for repair businesses under the guise of consumer protection.Australia consumer law covers most of these problems. Goods should be safe, lasting and have no faults. This allows protection that exceeds manufacturers minimum and extended warranties (which is essentially sold as insurance). e.g. a $1000 laptop that dies after a year is not exactly "lasting".Australian consumer law also states that goods have clear title, come with undisturbed possession, are free from any hidden securities or charges. Spare parts and repair facilities are required to be reasonably available for a reasonable period of time (otherwise this needs to be made clear up front).As not everyone has the skill to perform repairs themselves they will of course seek out third parties or agents if required. Again, it's important that consumers get these rights not just authorized or non authorized agents of the manufacturers.

author: bdunham7
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2021, 04:50:24 am
content: Quote from: Shock on July 25, 2021, 04:20:48 amYou wouldn't know this unless you were involved in or at least followed the issue from its early beginnings, but it is almost the opposite. Yes, the laws appear to grant the access to independent repairers instead of consumers, but here in the US that is a very loose border. Early on, one of the scare tactics that OEMs would use was that there were safety and security reasons that would be problematic if 'consumers' could scan their own diagnostic systems or replace their own fuel pumps. Independent repair shops were the only group that could credibly counter that claim and also the only ones that could plausibly bear the expense of some of the equipment and service information that was required. I paid many tens of thousands of dollars for online service information and diagnostic equipment at the time as they became available. That has now trickled down to the consumer, who can generally purchase a wide variety effective, low-cost devices and the service information is also widely available for very low prices. Most R2R legislation assumes you can't rebuild your own transmission, so your 'right' is to have it rebuilt by a professional of your choosing. But, if you are so inclined, there would be very little standing in the way of you doing it yourself.Automotive parts have been available for most common brands without too much difficulty since the beginning of time, AFAIK. Anyone can walk into most dealerships and purchase almost any part they want. There can be exceptions, but those are usually for reasons not related to the manufacturer preventing you from doing a repair.

author: rsjsouza
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2021, 11:16:24 am
content: Quote from: Shock on July 25, 2021, 04:20:48 amFTFY. This legislation is for everyone.Quote from: Shock on July 25, 2021, 04:20:48 amI don' t know the situation in Australia, but in the countries I know these are not very enforceable and add a tremendous cost to the final product.For "safe" there are several things already in place, ranging from the screws on toys' battery compartments up to the ridiculous messages in coffee cups saying the beverage is hot (even California's Prop 65 that states that everything causes cancer). Regardless, an immense amount of products come in boats wrapped in Aliexpress/Banggood wrapping paper - little to no enforcement at all.For "lasting", this is very vague. A laptop should last three, five or ten years? What about a cellphone that is typicallyreplaced every 2 years? Is there a table per product constantly amended by the legislative branch or an agency?"No faults" is the less controversial of these issues, but depending on the language used to describe a feature (and translation errors) it can become terribly vague.Quote from: Shock on July 25, 2021, 04:20:48 amTo me these are the harder wrinkles to solve about the legislation in discussion in this thread. With the advent of internet, parts are "reasonably accessible", but what if there is a shortage like the one we are seeing right now? Will this be considered a fault from the manufacturer? Also, beloved Fluke, Keysight carry replacement parts on their inventories but how long this can be considered reasonable? One, three, ten years after discontinuation of a product?Quote from: Shock on July 25, 2021, 04:20:48 amAnd this legislation is not restricted to businesses.Overall I think that consumer protection laws in the US are almost non-existent, in contrast to Brasil and some EU countries where there are several provisions that cover these scenarios. In practice the answer is always somewhere in between a full coverage legislation, which increases prices and restricts transactions, and "laissez faire", which opens up for abuse and cartelization. The advent of internet and, more recently, the direct exports from China, the "laissez faire" is winning by a very large margin.

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2021, 07:45:12 am
content: Quote from: Brumby on July 23, 2021, 11:21:17 amkinda true. The point of R2R is legislation to stop manufactures making repairs difficult, but the reason repairs are currently difficult is because of planned obsolescence.but it kind of depends how exactly you define planned obsolescence.Is it PO if a fridge manufacture decides to make a new fridge and uses 5 years in their product lifetime calculations? Most people would expect a fridge to last 15 years. So 5 years is shorter than public expectation.Or, to be PO does the company have to decide to intentionally make their product less robust. Conducting tests to confirm reduced lifespan etc.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 26, 2021, 08:28:14 am
content: Quote from: Psi on July 26, 2021, 07:45:12 amR2R is not about making repairs easier from mechanical standpoint, or to fight planned obsolescence. It's to make parts, tools and service information available. You can be the best repairman in the world, but you won't fix the thing if required part is not available.

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2021, 12:56:11 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on July 26, 2021, 08:28:14 amThe R2R issue is inextricably linked to planned obsolescence.Any R2R law that helps to make repair easier by access to parts, tools and service information will also reduce planned obsolescence.The main driving factor for business's to withhold access to parts, tools, service info is profit.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 27, 2021, 04:17:12 pm
content: Quote from: Psi on July 27, 2021, 12:56:11 pmYes, it interferes with planned obsolescence but not directly.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2021, 11:18:51 pm
content: It may interfere with planned obsolescence, but it doesn't interfere with profits. Repair parts always (even in good situations) sell for far more than their original installed cost. Think of having to build a care or an oscilloscope using parts. Planned obsolescence merely means more of these part sales, which could easily exceed the profit from selling a new widget.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2021, 11:30:15 pm
content: I have seen estimates that building a car from repair parts would cost 5 to 20 times the retail price of a new car.Johnny Cash’s song “One Piece at a Time” is a comedy about stealing parts from the factory over 25 years (limited by lunchbox size) and the resulting problems with getting them to fit each other.

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2021, 07:09:23 am
content: Quote from: TimFox on July 27, 2021, 11:30:15 pmBack in the late 1070's there was a case of someone who worked in the land rover factory stealing parts for range rovers, he worked in partnership with the man who delivered milk to the factory canteen.They smuggled whole engines out hidden by the milk crates and got caught when the loft ceiling of the factory workers house fell in from the weight of car parts. They had ammased nearly enough parts to build three range rovers including chassis axles and body panels. Made the national news at the time.

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 06, 2021, 09:58:37 am
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on July 27, 2021, 11:18:51 pmI disagree, if you buy a washing machine and it breaks every 5 years forcing you buy a new one then you are spending maybe $1000 every 5 years.But if you can repair this washing machine you should easily be able to keep it running for 15-20 years and only spend at most $1000 on parts. (My current washing machine is over 20 years old and I can still buy parts for it. It's had a new motor, new main driveshaft, 2 new solenoid water valves and a new front panel. It's a bit worse for wear but still works totally fine)So- With planned obsolescence in 20 years you have spent ((20y/5y) * $1000) = $4000- With R2R in 20 years you have spent $1000 purchase + $1000 parts = $2000 max, probably less (assuming you want to fix it, you're still free to buy a new one if you want)However I do agree that when R2R laws pass and companies are forced to sell spare parts they're going to raise their part prices to try and claw back the profit they lost from less sales. So it is important that any R2R law states that the parts must be "reasonably priced". No charging 50% of the retail price of the whole machine for a part that is only 5% of the BOM cost.I would be totally fine if the replacement part price was its BOM cost scaled up to retail price and multiplied by 2.

author: rsjsouza
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 06, 2021, 11:16:26 am
content: I see this as the pendulum of history in action again. Back in the day when TVs started to become "single-chip", the technicians started to see the price of large parts (flyback transformer, voltage doublers, Yoke) become pretty high in an attempt to push to replace the entire set instead. Sure, back then there was still a great deal of second source parts but the pressure was on. This not only signaled how the times would become but also pushed less scrupulous technicians to blame everything on these parts, so they could apply a nice markup.If the manufacturers sell decent quality products and charge for it due to the need to keep inventory of old parts, then so be it. At least it could put some deceleration to the waste culture that has permeated certain societies for the past 30+ years.

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 06, 2021, 11:34:39 am
content: Another approach to getting R2R is having laws like in Germany where an appliance/device must be returned to the manufacturer when it is time to dispose of it. So that they have to deal with it's disposal.If you make the cost of disposal expensive for the manufacturer they will naturally make the device last longer to save money.Or at the very least, make the device easy to dissemble and recycle.The only way forward with R2R is to make it less profitable to design things to fail instead of more profitable.

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 06, 2021, 11:53:01 am
content: Quote from: robint91 on July 18, 2021, 12:53:59 pmEven bigger is the current state of the car manufacturers planned obsolesce of their cars. One tiny example BMW have made the 3 series to be utter crap,they figured that if they replace a metal part inside the engine with a plastic they can charge you for a complete engine rebuild every 5000km (cant remember exact figure).https://youtu.be/T7Q0nNkQTCo?t=753Tesla water nipple crack!Tesla worn out eMMC case:https://www.embeddedcomputing.com/application/automotive/failing-mcus-inoperative-vehicles-due-to-a-worn-out-emmc-chip-what-happened

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 06, 2021, 12:26:51 pm
content: Quote from: Psi on October 06, 2021, 11:34:39 amThose approaches might have unintended consequences. Be prepared for more recycled parts on the market, sold as new.

author: Zucca
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 06, 2021, 12:45:19 pm
content: Generally I would like a discount on product I can use but not repair.In alternative paying some extra for the service manual it would also be somehow fair.What I do not like is the dishonest, crooked, foul, bent and knavish attitude to sell a product at full price which in reality it is just renting it...

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 06, 2021, 12:48:14 pm
content: Quote from: mariush on July 18, 2021, 09:01:49 pmRecall Japan had 10 years back in the 80es on chips, it might have been on other components as well, cant remember , most likely that law got ditched some time.

author: Ranayna
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 08, 2021, 12:00:02 pm
content: *sigh* People are not smartOr maybe it's just the gamers? I don't know, i'm a gamer and think i am resonably smart :pSome time ago, Valve, the company behind the gaming platform Steam, announced a new portable gaming system. Essentially a full fledged PC, running Linux, in a form-factor similar to the Nintendo Switch.A couple of days ago, Valve posted this video:Showing a teardown of the device, and that several main components are reasonably easy to replace, and, more importantly, that they will sell official spare parts.And what are the comments on many sites discussing this?The manufacturer is expecting it to break.It's dangerous!Think about the childen! Yes, really: what if a child opens the device after seeing this video...Apparently many users do not even want repairability.

author: Ed.Kloonk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 08, 2021, 12:18:42 pm
content: I remember when the entertainment system in the house was as big as a piece of furniture. In fact, it WAS a piece of furniture.

author: themadhippy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 08, 2021, 12:21:18 pm
content: Quotewith that sort of attitude there wont be any need for the right to repair as there wont be any engineers around in a generation or two.I know im not the only one,who at an early age wanted to know how things worked and was taking the back of stuff to see the "magic"

author: Shock
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 08, 2021, 04:57:21 pm
content: Mandating longer warranties is the way to go. It will change the whole ecosystem. We need to be thinking in terms of 5, 10 and 20 years and beyond products. Sustainably needs to be taught to generation A and B at an early age. They will be affected directly by our and their management of the environment, food production, energy and waste. They need to be innovators of change rather than vapid social media personalities.

author: langwadt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 02, 2021, 08:37:33 pm
content: Quote from: Shock on October 08, 2021, 04:57:21 pmare you willing to pay for it? is everyone else?

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 03, 2021, 12:12:11 am
content: Quote from: Ranayna on October 08, 2021, 12:00:02 pmNo. Those responses are the nanny state thinkers and armchair warriors when they have nothing better to do.The better time to get their opinion is if the device HAS a fault and they are faced with the repair bill.

author: themadhippy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 03, 2021, 12:23:57 am
content: Quotesupposedly in the uk we have 6 year warranty against manufacturers defects,good luck trying to get them to accept that or admit its there fault it broke and not down to wear and tear or abuse,

author: bdunham7
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 03, 2021, 01:01:39 am
content: Quote from: Shock on October 08, 2021, 04:57:21 pmWarranty does not mean repairability. Even many simple products now are entirely unsupported in any technical way and the only thing the seller can do is a unit replacement. I just repaired a $400 mini wine cooler for a friend--the so-called manufacturer (actually an importer) offers no service, parts or information and suggests buying a new unit if anything fails. A new generic 120mm fan (and a drop of oil would have fixed that) and it is good to go--except the power brick gets too hot. It likely needs some capacitors, but it is glued together....There's no technical reason this needs to be this way. Most of the parts that are likely to fail on this unit are not uncommon or strange and any idiot with a screwdriver set should be able to replace most of them. Power bricks can easily be made to screw together, with a sticker over the screw holes. Warranty policy won't help any of these issues.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 03, 2021, 01:15:04 am
content: Quote from: langwadt on November 02, 2021, 08:37:33 pmWe are all going to pay no matter what direction things go. It's simple economics.Yes, your old TV from the 60s or 70s could be more readily repaired - but they cost a greater percentage of the average wage back then than today's offerings. The market has also changed significantly as well.I think it's a case of Back To The Future. ..

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 03, 2021, 02:32:52 am
content: Selling spare parts of an appliance can be a lot more profitable, margin wise, than selling the original device.Even if it cost 3 times the retail price to buy all the parts necessary to build the entire product those spare parts would still be reasonably priced for a repair.Normally the part needed for a repair is a very small percentage of the total product so paying a bit more for it is not really a problem.Obviously there is a point where the part is overpriced and the manufacture is trying to force you to buy a new one rather than repair the old one. However i think there is quite a bit of room between these two points for spare parts to be priced fair while still giving a good profit margin to the manufacture that is higher than the margin on the original product.I don't see supplying spare parts to be something that needs to be "paid for"

author: ataradov
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 03, 2021, 02:50:41 am
content: Having to manage a warehouse of those spare parts and logistics of shipping them one by one is a nightmare. And you will not get too many retail shops wanting to carry all the parts for all the devices in a world, so it would be on a vendor to ship them and then deal with the customers that screwed up something because they tried to do something like in a TikTok video.It is way more complicated than it seems.And in some cases parts are not even available in one place, they go into sub-assemblies, which are shipped to other locations for final assembly.

author: bdunham7
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 03, 2021, 03:07:05 am
content: Quote from: ataradov on November 03, 2021, 02:50:41 amOperating systems, open heart surgery and rocketeering are also very complicated, but they aresolved problemsin a mature field. No matter how horrendously complicated you try to make parts and service, it has been done successfully for many years by all sorts of companies. The economics may fail at some point using old methods, mostly due to the ongoing costs of having people available. And some products are indeed just not reasonably repairable. But the example I am talking about would cost a pittance to make parts and information available. However, they've chosen not to and the obligations of a warranty seem unlikely to change their minds.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 03, 2021, 03:54:47 am
content: The bottom line in the fundamentals of Right To Repair don't really insist on the enforcement of parts being made available. It's more in the direction that access to partsshould not be blocked.Allow suppliers the freedom to sell components, assemblies or whatever and let open market economics dictate what is available and for how long. If a manufacturer or other party has an interest in the intellectual property for something, then, by all means, add a royalty into the pricing - as long as it's not onerous.Even Louis Rossmann has said (and I'm paraphrasing) he'd be happy to pay $20 for a $5 (retail) chip to do repairs rather than having to harvest it from a $100(plus) product - which he has done.Some people are reading "Force the manufacturer to carry repair inventory" into the argument - which I can see is one direction this can go - but it's the practice of blocking access which needs to be outlawed, at the very least.

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 03, 2021, 05:12:09 am
content: A forced spare parts system, if one existed, would encourage manufactures to use off-the-shelf parts wherever available. If no off-the-shelf part currently exists, they would want to get a company that specializes in those type of parts to add one to their publicly available range. Not necessarily a stocked range, but something that could be ordered by anyone. (I'm thinking about generic things here, pulleys, belts, wheels, generic gate ICs etc, not ASICs or anything IP related)If there's a market for a part someone will buy 5000 from that manufacturer, or whatever the min order run is, and then resell them.It means that the manufacture has only a very small number of spare parts they themselves need to supply.It's only really things like ASICs or other stuff that has IP or for which blocking competitors from using it is desirable.I think we can all agree that using a standard or protocol is better than inventing your own one in 99% of cases.It should be the same for parts.

author: Sal Ammoniac
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 03, 2021, 04:32:19 pm
content: Quote from: ataradov on November 03, 2021, 02:50:41 amDigiKey and Mouser seem to have no problems doing this. I can (and have) order a single resistor from them.

author: ataradov
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 03, 2021, 04:55:13 pm
content: Quote from: Sal Ammoniac on November 03, 2021, 04:32:19 pmYes, but this is their entire job.If I make a tea kettle or a microwave oven, and I make some non-standard part for them, then I will now have to turn into DigiKey and start doing retail shipping of individual parts. And all of a sudden I have to handle personal information for a lot of people (which in EU will require to have another position filled). And before all of that all I had to do is ship a container of assembled and packaged products to retail distributors.Or I will have to somehow make an agreement with likes of DigiKey to distribute my part. But DigiKey will not do it for free, and likely require ongoing payments for warehouse storage for items that don't move a lot.

author: Sal Ammoniac
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 03, 2021, 05:08:46 pm
content: Quote from: ataradov on November 03, 2021, 04:55:13 pmI think this model could work. Parts are small, and the costs of warehousing them shouldn't be prohibitive. Manufacturers could work with DigiKey to set up BOMs for their products to make it easy to find and order parts needed for repairs.

author: themadhippy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 03, 2021, 06:25:54 pm
content: How did we cope in the past,no online global markets,just your local specialist shop that actually repaired things, who would order the broken bit in for you if they didn't have one on the shelf.

author: ataradov
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 03, 2021, 07:40:41 pm
content: Quote from: themadhippy on November 03, 2021, 06:25:54 pmThings were WAY simpler in design and capabilities. You don't want to go back to that.

author: Alti
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 03, 2021, 08:55:42 pm
content: Quote from: ataradov on November 03, 2021, 07:40:41 pmEven the solutions to problems of today, including RTR, has to keep up with increasing complexity. If a washing machine 20 years ago consisted of 100 parts and current models include 500 parts then I cannot imagine this "Digikey" RTR in the next 20 years. Looks like this has to be modularized somehow, otherwise this is going to be insanely complex (think Moore's law). Now, the modules as such won't fall under RTR and we end up at the same point of unrepairability, but this time on module level.

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 04, 2021, 10:13:07 am
content: A manufacturer getting custom parts produced by another manufacturer isn't a problem so long as anyone can go to the same manufacturer and also get a run of the same part.If you take most products and break them down, the number of custom parts is quite small.Most of the custom parts are enclosure related.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 04, 2021, 12:40:26 pm
content: Quote from: Alti on November 03, 2021, 08:55:42 pmThis all depends onwhatthose 500 parts are. IF we follow the thoughts presented byPsi, there could be a lot of parts that would be considered "jelly bean". Digikey (et al) might already have a lot of these already in inventory.This then extends into a narrow and misdirected thinking of repair. Modular repair is only one option.Component level repair is an alternative that reduces inventory.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 04, 2021, 02:28:19 pm
content: Quote from: themadhippy on November 03, 2021, 12:23:57 amDo you have any proof of that?The last I heard was UK consumer protection laws state something vague like the product should be of reasonably quality and last for a reasonable length of time, given its price. In theory the idea is if you buy a top of the range produce, it should last much longer than a cheap on. In practise it's ambiguous and difficult to prove anything.

author: themadhippy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 04, 2021, 04:05:25 pm
content: QuoteIts buried somewhere in the 2015 consumer rights act,but as you say is all rather vagueQuoteBut what is a module? for example are the whole innards of a toaster,elements thermostat,lifting mechanism etc a module that you replace so the only original parts are the enclosure and the mains cable?

author: DrG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 04, 2021, 04:13:34 pm
content: US patent office weighs in on the issuehttps://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2021-23311.pdfalso seehttps://www.ifixit.com/News/54317/section-1201-exemptions-for-2021-repair-consoles-medical-devices

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 04, 2021, 04:54:04 pm
content: Quote from: themadhippy on November 04, 2021, 04:05:25 pmWhere? I've not seen any reference to fixed warranty periods in UK consumer law.Incidentally, UK consumer law applies in addition to any warranty. Suppose an expensive product only has a warranty of 6 months and it fails after 7 months. It's still theoretically possible to get a repair, replacement, or refund from the seller, irrespective of it being outside the warranty period, because it hasn't lasted for a reasonable length of time. Note the customer should always go to the seller, as it's them who they have given the money and have made the contract with. The seller can then make a claim with the manufacturer.

author: Shock
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 04, 2021, 04:55:25 pm
content: We have similar "fit for purpose" laws here. Not having this or only mandating a year warranty will never work these days as you get the "pump and dump" manufacturers/oems that exploit this. Which also sums up a large part of the problem, it's not the credible brands who are the issue it's their eventual demise being unable to compete on an uneven playing field. Being undercut or up against brands that churn products constantly and throw huge resources into marketing "limited lifetime" or low cost products.People need to stop worrying about semantics of who pays for an extended warranty. We all pay for everything in the end, but it's moving responsibility to the manufacturer, that is key to prevent a race to the bottom.

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 04, 2021, 05:13:08 pm
content: Pump and dump manufacturing traces back to its origin of FED's and other bankers unrestricted fiat printing who destroys everything including 10 year warranty and rights to repair.

author: ogden
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 04, 2021, 05:56:46 pm
content: Quote from: ataradov on November 03, 2021, 04:55:13 pmSeriosuly?If you are microwave manufacturer - then sell bulk of spare parts to distributor like DigiKey, do not become one. There are many around already. Example:https://www.partscentre.co.uk/

author: langwadt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 04, 2021, 11:54:45 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on November 04, 2021, 04:54:04 pmEU consumer law is two years, but burden of proof changes after 6 months

author: langwadt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 04, 2021, 11:57:50 pm
content: Quote from: Shock on November 04, 2021, 04:55:25 pmsurely the big established manufacturers would love that, the bigger the barrier to entry (enforced by tax money) the better, the easier it is to keep the little guys out

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 05, 2021, 12:12:11 pm
content: Quote from: langwadt on November 04, 2021, 11:54:45 pmThe UK left the EU, so it's no longer relevant here, unless our government decided to keep that law, as they have with many others.I'm not sure if fixed warranty periods are a good thing. It should depend on the product. I'd expect a washing machine to last for longer than a laptop and would expect a more expensive washing machine to last for longer. For most things I'd say two years isn't enough and burden of proof is an odd one. It's well known that people abuse products and the manufacturer/seller shouldn't be held responsible, but it's completely unacceptable to have shoddily constructed products on the market.

author: TheBay
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 12, 2021, 09:43:09 pm
content: I had great difficulty buying a mains cable for my Miele washing machine due to "Right to repair"Miele has now decided (And some other manufacturers) that right to repair means only authorised and certified repair centres can purchase parts and end users can now only replace user replaceable parts (Which are really really simple parts)Even third party stores that sell spares have been told by the manufacturers they cannot sell spare parts.So things have gone backwards really and it is now a monopoly.I did manage to order the mains cable from Miele in the end, it was £90. I would have used an alternative cable but I have a 10 year warranty on that machine.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 12, 2021, 10:04:29 pm
content: Quote from: TheBay on November 12, 2021, 09:43:09 pmWFT? Just use ordinary mains cable. A washing machine will be fine with standard 1.25mm2, or 1.5mm2PVC insulated mains cable. Anyone telling you, that special cable is required, is lying.

author: TheBay
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 12, 2021, 10:14:40 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on November 12, 2021, 10:04:29 pmAnd lose my 10 year warranty? I would have just done that if it was out of warranty.This mains lead has a plug on one end that plugs in to the inverter board, you remove a screw from the rear and it slides sideways and pops out.

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 13, 2021, 03:05:10 am
content: Quote from: TheBay on November 12, 2021, 10:14:40 pmIt depends on the country, but most places have laws that the manufacture cannot refuse warranty just because a device was opened or a part was changed. The "warranty void if opened" stickers are not enforceable and have never been. If the manufacturer thinks the device failure was related to what you did or the part you changed to aftermarket then they have to prove it.However, until this is common public knowledge the manufacturer may just lie and say you are not covered by warranty and hope you go away. In this case you have to take them to small claims court.This issue is a problem with public perception and the company, not really a law issue.If everyone was talking to them court the courts would get pissed off at them and they would fail into line.Companies will try to get away with everything if the public lets them.

author: TheBay
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 13, 2021, 09:53:10 am
content: Quote from: Psi on November 13, 2021, 03:05:10 amI think the point has been missed here with the past 2 replies on what I originally said.The point I was making is that parts are getting increasingly difficult to purchase if not impossible from either manufacturers or third party retailers due to the "Right to repair" it has stopped end users, third party retailers and any non "authorised repairers" from being able to obtain them.The part I needed has no third party or compatible equivalent, if I had to replace it using suitable flex I would have had to modify the washing machine which would have involved drilling holes and soldering wires to the main board. Which I can't see going down too well when I do a callout.Ironically it was a good investment jumping through hoops to buy this cable, as when I went to replace it, I noticed rust underneath the machine. And when I put my borescope inside the machine I could see the lower pan had rusted through.Turns out the detergent had been leaking internally and eaten away the base of the machine. I called an engineer out and within days I had a brand new washing machine delivered.Picture attached of the damage.

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 13, 2021, 10:08:19 am
content: Quote from: TheBay on November 13, 2021, 09:53:10 amI have seen other post on this forum from a few people in the UK saying they are now finding it really hard to buy electrical components because their usual supplier has changed the rules and now only sells to other companies that are VAT registered. Perhaps this is what you are seeing?But I have not see any evidence that this trend is related to right to repair.In any case, no one else in the word seems to be having this issue that i'm aware of, it seems to be a UK thing.If right to repair was the cause you would expect to see it happening everywhere.

author: TheBay
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 13, 2021, 10:13:31 am
content: Quote from: Psi on November 13, 2021, 10:08:19 amIt's definitely due to "Right to repair" not a VAT issue, it has also affected the EU too as we decided to match the EU policy before we left.https://www.which.co.uk/news/2021/06/new-right-to-repair-laws-introduced-what-do-they-actually-mean-for-you/

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 13, 2021, 10:15:49 am
content: Whatever happens you should still be able to order your spare parts internationally.You may also find a market develops for professional repairers, who have access to the parts, to resell them to the public with their own markup. Not ideal, but better than nothing and no different to how retail works for other sectors. Manufacturer -> wholesaler -> retailer. Previously the wholesaler was also selling to the public and being a retailer but if this now stops a new retailer may step in to serve that market.Unless you have some ghastly law that states some spare parts are illegal for the general public to own or be sold. But, If that is the case i suggest looking at options to move to a different country as a final level of protest against the system.

author: Ranayna
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 01, 2021, 02:09:55 pm
content: I think that this is more related to consumer protection laws.A consumer in the EU, and i would assume that UK also still has that in effect, has a 14-day, no questions asked, right to return anything bought online.A business does not have that right.I can fully understand that the distributors do not want to deal with small-fry private customers anymore. It was always obvious that they never really were set up for that anyway. I would assume that one too many customer (ab)used the right to return. And any such deal is generally a net-loss. That is even true for the giants like amazon: It's cheaper to outright destroy many returned goods than to check and restock them. It's supposedly even cheaper to destroy than to donate.What is a distributor like DigiKey supposed to to with a cut tape containing 100 smd resistors? Just having someone look at the package to see if it is still sealed is more expensive than those components are worth.

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 02, 2021, 02:55:18 am
content: Yes, i agree.It's not a right to repair issue, it's wholesale companies saying they don't want to sell to the public and have to deal with lots of returns or comply with B2C rules. That doesn't mean parts won't be available to the public, if there is demand for them someone will sell them.And, if a country creates bad R2R laws that's not an argument against R2R, it's an argument against bad laws.

author: sandalcandal
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 02, 2021, 11:26:37 am
content: Australian Productivity Commission just released their final report on Right to Repair yesterday. Available here:https://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/repair/report