What a waste of resources. Imagine employing some of the most brilliant engineers on the planet and allocating man-hours towards artificially worsening the experience for your userbase in order to blackmail them into paying you, and giving them back what they had in the first place.
At least this is a loosing game for Google, since this is client side behaviour.
They may have been extremely competent at this, but if they decided to spend years of their relatively short ephemeral life on such a useless project, perhaps they weren’t the best at the time. Perhaps they needed money and were focusing on family life, I don’t know. Who I am to judge? I’m judging though.
Why is that useless as opposed to what most of us do for work? I think you guys have a weird sense of how useful the average job is, or how much the average job contributes to society at large. At least this made a lot of money I guess.
They can take the skill to any other employer and improve performance for others elsewhere. Think of all the seconds you could get back to do more meaningful things if more websites were fully optimized. It may sound silly but it snowballs into minutes, hours, and days.
I think most jobs contribute positively to the society. Not much, for sure, but they contribute.
Is the cleaner regularly removing poop stains from the personal toilet of a big and rich Google shareholder more useful than the qualified Google engineer working hard so a big number is very slightly bigger on one the shareholder’s list of numbers? I think the cleaner has more impact.
Before tech became the go-to big money job, there was a well-worn stereotype of electrical engineering grads going to Wall Street instead of an EE-centric job.
It's a testament to the health of our free markets and competition that the winning move here is to spend a lot of time and money making your product worse for the average person.
While I'm not pro YouTube, I think it's fine for companies to decide how to monetise their product, including things which were originally free. If you don't like free services, stop using them
If a company wants to offer its service as a loss-leader to outlast its competitors who offered their services at a cost its users were willing to pay, then that company has no room to complain if people don't want to pay the last-game-in-town's jacked-up rates!
There is no moral high-ground for YouTube to take here.
GP and I are apparently from that universe where you remember that YouTube wasn't the only popular video on demand game in town and, e.g., Vimeo is older than YouTube. They only won because they didn't charge you for uploading or watching. They could afford to undercut the competition since they were bought by Google.
They were also somehow the only ones that offered music videos without being shut down.
Dailymotion, Google Video, sevenload, german TV stations RTL and Pro7 even launched Clipfish and MyVideo respectively to compete with youtube. Youtube happens to be the only one that survived on Googles ad model, the others very quickly realized that paid premium content is much easier to handle (copyright, CSAM) and monetize.
There wasn't but consider the context: at the time YouTube was an almost purely piracy platform most likely the biggest on the planet if quantified in IP dollar value - yet was magically not shut down by the government. How unfair to the competition is that? Remember that other piracy based sites were raided in that era. But when Google started acquiring it, it was very quickly above the law. YouTube should not exist.
- fair use was also sot as permissive in that era! Web 2.0 coerced a legal shift -
By contributing to something I don't agree with it's called hypocrisy. Just don't use it. That's probably the only thing you can do about if you want change.
Okay, so list which websites I can use to watch all kinds of content that I can find on YouTube.
Vimeo? It's basically dead. DailyMotion? It could've been an alternative, but they've recently deleted most old videos. Peertube? Nice idea in theory, but lack of content.
Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and Tiktok all fulfil the 'whatever topic I am interested in this second, there are videos about it' property, though admittedly they do not have near as much meritorious long-form content as YouTube.
They're removing functionality that you already heave built into your browser in order to force you to pay to get that functionality back.
That's not monetization that's exploitation.
Would you feel the same if your phone suddenly updated so that your camera records in half quality unless you start paying monthly? It's their product, they can monetize it how they like.
The "functionality" is watching infinite free videos they provide. They are providing you with infinite free videos that you never paid for. You are not entitled to access the infinite free videos at all. You are definitely not entitled to access them in arbitrary ways that avoids their monitization scheme.
It's monetisation. If they put a paywall on the video, your browser has the functionality to play the video but you're forced to pay to use that functionality.
Also wrt phone, it's different because I paid for the phone. But also I'd just use a different camera app?
I don't think it's fine for large companies to intentionally lose money to drive smaller competitors out of business. In fact, I think this practice should be illegal and that all who participated should be in jail.
Oh, I despise this tactic so much. It means the company has known from the start that they can't offer it for free in the long term, but decided to subsidize it in order to gain a dominant position and get rid of competition. This breaks the conditions needed for a free market dynamics to work. In other words, they win market share for reasons other than efficiency, quality, or innovation. That's why some forms of government subsidies are prohibited under certain agreements, for example. Some multinational corporations have annual revenues larger than the GDP of many countries and can easily subsidize negative pricing for years to undercut competitors, consolidate market share, and ultimately gain monopoly power.
Also, the company has hinted false promises to the customer, as it signals that they have developed a business model where they can offer something for free. For example a two-sided marketplace where one side gets something for free to attract users and the other side pays (as it profits form these users). Users can't know something isn't sustainable unless the company explicitly states it in some way (e.g. this is a limited time offer).
So from the user's perspective, this is a bait-and-switch tactic, where the company has used a free offer in order to manipulate the market.
> If you don't like free services, stop using them
If they don't like users using their service how they deem improper, ban them? they know what accounts are doing it... There is a reason for this cat and mouse, and its not ending with youtube banning people.
A lot of the current issues i see with it, is that it is treated like the go to service for video hosting...
Just consider image hosting... If i see an image in a thread and click it (much like people will do with youtube urls), and block the ad that was on the hosted site, is there this much uproar about it? That image hosting site might charge 5$ to do what an adblocker already does... If they wanna lock that up? actually lock it up, and remove the "service" portion of the business, otherwise I don't see any legs to stand on here.
Service in my eyes here, is a public service. This is a company posing as a public service, and occasionally deciding it hates how a % of the public is using their service. So they hand them a 10$ a month ticket that they pretend is required, but they will never take action on users who dont pay that ticket.
Maybe ads-as-business-model is like political ideology - it is not a human universal but must adapt to the place: for instance collectivism over individualism in East Asia, theocratic conservatism over democracy in Afghanistan -- maybe ads as business model is despicable to some regions, but accepted in others? Albania it's apparently illegal for YouTube to serve ads?
Agreed. I was leaving the mall with lots of great goods I had found, but then the guard stopped me and told me I was stealing! Imagine paying that guy a salary just to blackmail me into paying them! This is an outrage.
> Imagine employing some of the most brilliant engineers on the planet
I am not sure those who work at Google are all brilliant - but it should
also not matter, because they support Evil here. They should be ashamed
for working for Evil. Guess if the money is right ...
Whataboutism is just fascinating. How myopic must your world view be that when you see one bad thing, you immediately try to justify it by pointing out another bad thing?
GP did not say that just because you work at a massive company you are brilliant. Nor did they say just working at Google makes you brilliant.
The irony of your comment of accusing them of using fallacious rhetoric, is that your reply uses one of the most common fallacies of all: strawman fallacy
GP assumed “the most brilliant engineers” are working on these problems. There’s zero reason to believe that is true and the one thing we know about those people is that they work for Google.
Their argument isn’t new, it’s just a rehash of “the most brilliant minds of our generation are working on trying to get you to click on ads”. My criticism was directed at the general argument, which is simply wrong. That comment is based on nothing except those people working at those corporations.
It is not a strawman because I am disagreeing with the conclusion as quoted, the reasoning being immaterial.
I'm sure the US government will be appreciative of a Chinese car manufacturer selling free cars in the US to obtain market share, and there definitely won't be calls of "dumping", no siree.
YouTube got to where it is by making intentional moves to be the only game in town. They aren’t the most user-hostile platform by any means, but they have been coasting on the network effects of backlogged content for close to a decade now. Even if a competitor could deal with network and storage costs, and somehow manage to attract a network of uploaders, the platform would be 20 years behind, and there’s certain content (e.g. older content) that you simply wouldn’t ever be able to find there in any appreciable quantity.
Drug dealers invented this business model, they would give heroin to young children for free and then once hooked hike the prices or force them to turn tricks to pay for their habit. It’s effective but not very admirable to say the least.
I've also seen this done for cheese, do you find that equally reprehensible? Or is the argument just rhetorical sleight of hand, where "drug dealers do X, so therefore X must be bad"? Drug dealers also consume food, and you know who else consumes food? You.
Cheese isn't so far off drugs after all: https://www.mountsinai.org/about/newsroom/2015/study-reveals... plus you have to make baby animals to get the milk for the cheese, so some exploitation is going on. I like cheese and youtube, but maybe they're both bad.
Cheesemongers have a bit less impact on society than drug dealers or Google. If Google were raking in hundreds of billions giving kids free cheese then charging them full price for parmigiana some might complain and I would not find fault in that. Scale matters.
It's not that we got hooked on YouTube (that would maybe be ok in a free market), it's that YouTube used "free" to make itself a monopoly. That's what the issue is, that you have no other options now.
Yes, the monopolistic aspect and scale are the parts I’m most bothered by. I think we all agree dangerous chemicals should be regulated, but we lack this sensibility when it comes to many tech products. So far at least. Eventually we’ll catch up. Will there be the lingering legacy, the tech equivalent of super fund sites? Maybe.
I don't disagree that some of these apps might need to be regulated, because they're basically attention crack, but to me that's more TikTok and Instagram rather than YouTube.
I hear TikTok is on the decline, and arguably the forced change of ownership is a sort of regulation. Instagram is owned by meta who has an interest in not letting it overtake Facebook in terms of popularity I imagine. It seems like a sort of hedge against other platforms mostly, but I really don’t know much about any of these platforms tbh. I use YouTube very heavily, but have only used twitter, Reddit and tinder in the distant past. I’ve never been on Facebook, TikTok, snap, etc… To me, irc and usenet were greatly superior and I’m waiting for people to return to their senses.
the only time ive tried to use a feature like that, is when im in the car listening to a podcast or something.
juggling the phone to not only skip ads, but also forcing the phone screen to be active, is a hazard.
In my case this loophole being closed, wouldn't make me pay for premium... but it would make a younger version of me certainly more dangerous on the road.
Do you ever watch videos on a computer? If so, do you ever switch away to a different tab, or to a different app entirely, and keep the video playing in your browser tab? YouTube artificially prevents that exact same action on tablets and phones unless you pay them.
Multitasking is a basic OS feature, no matter what kind of device you’re using. Gating it behind a paywall is user-hostile behavior at its finest.
My thoughts exactly. LLMs are tools, and you should be able to draw your tools out of your toolcase whenever you need them. Kagi has a good implementation where AI doesn't obscure your search results, but it's one click away if you need it. If only Kagi had more reasonable pricing.
Amazingly so Stephane Mifsud's 11:35 "regular air" WR apnea was set in 2009 and has stood since (at least as far as AIDA is concerned). There was a lot of speculation online back then as it is an extraordinary time and was quite high compared to the previous record. If I recall correctly the hold was performed at his home pool, and he has a lung capacity almost double the average adult male's.
This is a video of the end of Mifsud's 11:35 breath hold: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHPGKb7ipgc . The protocol after the hold is that you have to take off your goggles/mask and noseclip, look at the judges and do a clear hand signal that you're ok. Your chin/face should not touch the water before you get a reply from the judges, in the form of a card. It's nothing short of amazing how clearly he follows protocol given that his brain has been oxygen deprived for more than 11 minutes.
We train for surface protocol to become automatic, so even depraved of oxygen, it becomes a reflex. It does a big difference, you'd be surprised to see how many ppl blackout when surfacing because they exhale too much first :/
Regarding Mifsud, he had a YouTube channel, in French, which is full of information about freediving ! He worked a lot with scientists to understand how his body work and how to reach this world record.
Also he confessed that he does not have spams when holding breath, so it helps a bit.
Because you can use actual value to incentivize what you want to see rather than "cheap" likes. At the same time if you provide posts that are valuable to others, then you receive value back.
I don't like the exclusive solution that X is building where majority of people will be excluded from participating, but you asked about the "why".
The EU is protecting its citizens' privacy, as it should, and I find it immensely relieving that the EU has been making mostly sane decisions as far as privacy is concerned. It's not the EU's responsibility to figure out how make Meta's business model be profitable while respecting their users' privacy.
> Right to repair is a nice idea and it's heart is in the right place, but won't ever work for something like a consumer phone.
Why not? Every major phone manufacturer uses numerous techniques to make devices unrepairable and yet people still find ways to fix them. I'm not a hardware engineer, but I have fixed multiple devices, and I have no special skills or equipment besides standard ifixit toolkits. The only hindrances are introduced by manufacturers themselves. Replacing or refunding devices doesn't reduce e-waste, on the contrary.
I can't get behind what you're saying but I am curious to hear your take. Why do you think right to repair "won't ever work"?
Because you generate, at best, an adversarial situation. The self-repair users are in it mostly for being cheap (or thinking it’s cheaper) and are (largely) unable to do a better-than-trained-technician job of a (probably) complicated job. Both are an annoyance to the producer. And not one where they risk a lot for (this only affects a minority of purchases)
On the other hand, mandating long warranty times puts the Producer vs the state. Which is a much harder situation to decide “I’ll just ignore that”.
And if you say; that right to repair is also a state decision… it’s only kinda. Because what right-to-repair means (or is thought to mean) differs _widely_. But the nice thing about the warranty thing would be that it would create a large incentive to make it cheaper to repair things. Which probably ends up with the same situation (ie experts, or self-perceived experts, being able to help themselves)
> unable to do a better-than-trained-technician job of a (probably) complicated job
Isn't this because manufacturers are actively hindering repair shops? It's both the result and the cause of the manufacturers' strategy. No schematics, devices built without taking repairability in mind and very expensive parts or parts that come with caveats.
Making longer warranties is always welcome but it won't help as much, because the vast majority of repairs aren't covered under warranty. I'm guessing that most repairs are due to user error than manufacturing defects thus not covered under warranty.
> Because you generate, at best, an adversarial situation.
This shouldn't be the case. Reducing e-waste and thus doing everything possible for sustainability should be the priority here. I've found myself many times in a situation where a perfectly working device was damaged, or just stopped receiving software updates and had to be decommissioned because of security concerns, and this is not only limited to phones.
> I can't get behind what you're saying but I am curious to hear your take. Why do you think right to repair "won't ever work"?
hnaccount_rng has already raised good points. I will add to them:
1) Working in product compliance I have learned: The simpler the rules, the harder it is to avoid them/weasel them. "Right to repair" rules will ALWAYS be more complicated than a simple "good" warranty. You are essentially legislating how to design products which has an infinite solution space. AND what do you legislate? "It has to be repairable". What is that?
- What skill level of the technician is required? What is the maximum time that they are allowed to spend to deem it "repairable"? (given enough time and skill you can repair almost anything). How we do verify that? Do they need a certification now? Who sets the requirements for that? Who does the testing? Or should the consumer be able to fix it? What tools are allowed or not allowed? Are custom tools allowed? Do I now have to manufacture them and sell those? (cause we use lots of bespoke tools). Now I have to inventory those items, that's going to cost.
- Are mechanical jigs (which are ubiquitous and very expensive and normally bespoke for manufacturing or repairs) allowed? How complicated can they be? Say they are allowed, how does the technician use it? Do I now have to manufacturer it and make is saleable? How much can it cost? (they can easily cost tens of thousands). Can I just lend said jig? For how long? Who insures it when it is in transit? How many jigs must I have in circulation at any time so that repairs are conducted fast enough?
- Can I not use glue anymore? Or only certain types? Say you legislate types that are easy to remove or desolve, ok well their mechanical properties suck and the device will be crappier now.
- How long does this need to be repairable? The reality these days is that a lot of PCBs are cheaper and/or easier to just scrap and replace ... so do I now have to keep repair stock? How much? For how long? What if I run out? Am I now obligated to spin up a 1 million dollar production line to make a few very uneconomic spares?
I could go on ALL day.
How do you legislate all of that? Cause the parts that don't now have to go through the courts. Now it's just a big steaming mess that doesn't work AND it's complicated AND you have many smart engineers, who just want to get paid and go home and smart lawyers to circumvent it.
2) I know this might be very unpopular to say on HN, but the reality is that MOST (not all) of what companies do that makes things "unrepairable" is mainly because it's a) cheaper or b) securing the supply chain against counterfeiters because counterfeits devalue your brand and also you don't want to be on the hook for repairing really good counterfeits (and I have personally experienced the latter).
3) The "good warranty" solution is utilising an internal manufacturer calculus that already exists. Right now it is "tuned" to if US market => it only has to last a year + 1 day. Then "not our problem". In a "hand wavy based on experienced way" it's easier to get change by just shifting the goal posts (longer warranty).
4) I applaud you on fixing the items yourself but while it was fine for you, the quality probably wouldn't have passed on my production line. I have also observed many of those little phone repair shops do work and every single one I would have booted off my line. I am yet to see a single one of them use proper ESD protection (in any modern factory you are not even allowed inside without ESD gear). Sure they fixed it for you, but some other customers phone is now a walking wounded. I guarantee it.
I found this article very illustrative about just how clueless, many people, even "right to repair" proponents are about the systems that they are trying to regulate:
https://www.theverge.com/2022/5/21/23079058/apple-self-servi...
Yes, that jig Apple supplied, that's what it takes these days. Modern production and repair lines are soooo tuned for efficiency it's insane. That tuning introduces complexity which then goes through the roof for repairing stuff outside of said line. It's why often it's cheaper and quicker to throw parts out and replace it. We've gotten THAT good.
Finally, I actually think it is actually rather insulting how many people believe that fixing something like a phone PROPERLY is "not that hard" and "any tech can do it". I see these comments as demeaning and insulting to the experienced people working on these production and repair lines who are often underpaid and treated very poorly.
5) Right to repair will not solve e-waste. My opinion is it won't make much of a dent. E-waste is a separate issue that absolutely also needs to be tackled by compulsory recycling. And actually, in the case of phones and many other consumer electronics, making them "repairable" can mean more resources being used. People (especially on HN) bemoan glue being used. Modern glues are great. They're used because they speed up assembly, are fairly easy to apply and make stuff thinner and mechanically simpler. Say you ban glue as a part of Right to repair legislation, I guarantee the screws and extra plastic you need instead use more material and have more embodied energy. You've actually now increased the amount of e-waste.
Finally, I think fundamentally, rather than being repairable, I think most people just want these devices to last longer (so again just force that through long warranties). And it can be done. I have personally worked on products with a 10 year "official" warranty and a "quiet internal" 20 year one. It wasn't an exotic product or industry either. In my opinion, repairing a thing is the ambulance at the bottom of the hill, it should not have broken in the first place. Why mandate the ambulance in all cases when you can mandate the minimisation of pushing stuff off the cliff instead?
Thank you for taking the time to write all this, it's very informative. It sounds messy, but then again I can't help but feel that every single point you mentioned is quite complex because we managed to reach a point in time where a device designed with repairability first, seems such a farcical concept.
We might have become really precise with manufacturing, and produced beautifully thin and solid devices. But the fact that Apple needs to ship a 79-pound/36kg repair kit just to change the battery of a phone, doesn't really demostrate how clueless people are about the repair process, on the contrary it demonstrates the absurd lengths Apple is willing to go just to mock open access to tools, parts and processes.
Regarding longer warranties, that would be an excellent step, but warranties won't solve the same problems, as they will never cover user caused damage which I'm guessing is the cause for most repairs.
What if we started with the obligation of the manufacturer to provide access to reasonably priced parts along with schematics, without altering their manufacturing process? Would that be an acceptable first step towards making repairs more accessible?
You seem to be the naivest one here, talking the bullshit Apple feeds you, when all that's required to remove the battery is a hairdryer, some prying tools and a bit of skills.
They actually are mocking the whole thing by pretending their bizarre contraption is needed, when many have tried and showed first hand it was faster to do it the "old" way.
The fact that you don't see that makes your opinion rather unsavory. But you do you I guess.
> Thank you for taking the time to write all this, it's very informative.
No problem :) I take the issue with short life products and e-waste very seriously and have given it much thought.
> It sounds messy, but then again I can't help but feel that every single point you mentioned is quite complex because we managed to reach a point in time where a device designed with repairability first, seems such a farcical concept.
I think we are also just at a natural point in technology where it is just hard to repair some of these things. Either we eschew these new technologies completely and loose their benefits to keep repairability, or accept that a lot of it isn't just repairable and we need:
1) Strong laws to protect the consumers investment in devices
2) Properly fund research into e-waste recycling
3) Mandate e-waste recycling and support specialist waste companies to do that.
We're literally counting atoms worth of materials to cut costs, reduce sizes and increase performance.
> We might have become really precise with manufacturing, and produced beautifully thin and solid devices. But the fact that Apple needs to ship a 79-pound/36kg repair kit just to change the battery of a phone, doesn't really demostrate how clueless people are about the repair process, on the contrary it demonstrates the absurd lengths Apple is willing to go just to mock open access to tools, parts and processes.
But this is my point. I don't think Apple was being absurd. This is just want it takes these days and almost all people don't appreciate that a jig like that is what it takes. And it's not even all that complex or expensive compared to jigs I have worked on.
Even many hardware engineers don't have a full grasp. Many these days have never been on a CM floor because a lot of it is abstracted away for them. And/Or they have never really talked to the mechanical engineers making jigs etc. because of internal company siloing.
> Regarding longer warranties, that would be an excellent step, but warranties won't solve the same problems, as they will never cover user caused damage which I'm guessing is the cause for most repairs.
This is a good point and my best idea for that is that, as apart of the warranty, the consumer gets one free/cost at percentage of purchase price (maybe 30%), no questions asked repair/replace for accidental damage.
Simple, it's the manufacturers problem and they'll work out that optimum point between: make it more rugged for drops vs not rugged enough for surviving being run over by a car.
(We already have standards for drops, water etc. They'll just get made more robust).
> What if we started with the obligation of the manufacturer to provide access to reasonably priced parts along with schematics, without altering their manufacturing process? Would that be an acceptable first step towards making repairs more accessible?
I have a very long, 2 part post, (sorry) to a another commenter which I think addresses this.
> I could go on ALL day. How do you legislate all of that?
"Everything required to replace or repair parts of the device should be fully, clearly and publicly documented, including all discrete part numbers, tools, jigs, etc. Any parts that are manufactured only by the device's manufacturer under patent protection or trade secret must be available for purchase."
If jigs are required, they must at least fully describe the jig so that people can make their own, if required.
You can use glue as long as it can be removed without damaging the device, and the type of glue is documented and available for purchase.
Mandating a level of skill is not necessary. If a repair requires high skill, like desoldering, they can find someone to do that repair, or sell the device to someone willing to do that repair before purchasing a new device. The level of skill required to repair a device will become known, although I'm also not opposed to requiring that be declared up front.
As you said, the scope of possible designs is infinite, so there exist designs that can satisfy all of these requirements.
The whole point is to expand the lifecycle of devices and create a repair and recycling industry, rather than the existing limited lifecycle of manufacturer->consumer->ewaste.
> Finally, I actually think it is actually rather insulting how many people believe that fixing something like a phone PROPERLY is "not that hard" and "any tech can do it".
Perfect is the enemy of the good. If your phone is a brick and an improper fix makes it useful at a much lower cost than a whole new phone, that's all that matters. Sorry, but your comment just sounds super elitist. Even if only 50% of devices are successfully repaired because they're being done "improperly", that's still a 50% reduction in ewaste.
> and also you don't want to be on the hook for repairing really good counterfeits (and I have personally experienced the latter).
Then don't. I don't see why the manufacturer should be on the hook to repair a counterfeit.
> 5) Right to repair will not solve e-waste. My opinion is it won't make much of a dent.
I disagree 200%. I've repaired countless phones, TVs, computers and other devices for myself and friends and family, all without help of legislation that would ensure the availability of parts and instructions, and the right to repair would only expand this trend. Most people wouldn't do this themselves even with the right to repair, but they are almost certainly within 2 degrees of separation of someone that would.
You're also looking at this very myopically through a specific tech industry lens and ignoring one of the main motivations of the right to repair: super expensive farm equipment. John Deere has a stranglehold on farmers who tend to be very DIY, and this has been driving up their costs and sometimes even driving them out of business because they can't access service or parts at affordable prices, and they can't repair the devices themselves. Breaking this stranglehold would be huge.
PART 1/2 (I have learned HN has a max comment length):
Please don't misunderstand. I would want something love something like right-to-repair for phones to succeed. I am trying to emphasise that, from an insiders perspective, good warranties are a MUCH better way to achieve most of the same goals.
(apologies in advance for being verbose)
(Please note, I am intentionally using the voice of "the cynical manufacturer", it will sound aggressive, but it is not meant to be aggressive to the poster. I am trying to show how you CANNOT give them even an INCH and right to repair legislation for something like a phone gives too many inches.)
To answer your points:
> "Everything required to replace or repair parts of the device should be fully, clearly and publicly documented, including all discrete part numbers, tools, jigs, etc. Any parts that are manufactured only by the device's manufacturer under patent protection or trade secret must be available for purchase."
No problem:
* Here is a part number: XXX-12345678-FF. It's for a part purchased from a 2nd tier supplier in Taiwan and it's one of a kind. It is now end of life btw so you can't actually purchase it.
By the letter of the law, I have met your requirement. Spirit of the law? Well maybe not. Either way, see you in court if you don't like it (and who's going to litigate? the consumer? the government?)
* Did you mean that it should still be purchasable? Well you didn't include that in your legislation but say you do somehow. Now I argue: Don't worry, there's grey market seller in Hong Kong who'll sell them to you for $100 each (original cost was $1 with MOQ 10,000 btw).
I have met your requirements.
Still not what you meant I assume?
Maybe we legislate:
"The manufacturer has to hold enough inventory to supply parts for repairs"
Sure ok. Who's paying for keeping this in inventory? Can I on-charge that to the buyer of said spare part? If not, well I guess the phone is going to cost more now because I need to recover that cost. (Bigger warehouses are not free. I also don't keep my own stock, my Contract Manufacturer (CM) in Taiwan does that for me and they'll be charging a fee).
Also you didn't specify how long I have to keep this for. I think 1 year + 1 day is fair. Don't like that? See you in court again.
Maybe you now you also legislate "for the reasonable expected life of the product". What's that? I think still it's 1 year + 1 day. See you in court again if you don't like it.
Fine! let's legislate: "... for at least 3 years".
Oh I'm sorry, there was an unforseen problem and we went through our inventory-for-repair much faster than expected. There's none left and nobody makes this part anymore. Nobody makes an equivalent either.
What now? I hope the customer is entitled to a refund, but (again) you don't have that in your right-to-repair legislation ...
Let's torture this even more: "if for unforseen circumstances manufacturer can no longer supply spare parts, customer will be entitled to a full refund" ...
This sounds awfully like "full repair/replacement warranty of 3 years" but the route you've taken is much more tortured.
> If jigs are required, they must at least fully describe the jig so that people can make their own, if required.
Sure thing. Setting aside the fact that jigs can also constitute trade secrets, here is your jig:
* Here is the CAD for the jig you need. We built it for 10k USD because of a bulk discount. Bespoke for you it will probably be 25k USD.
* You also need this air compressor to drive it 2k USD.
* You will need this PXI-e from National Instruments 10k USD.
* That PXI-e needs these two DAQ cards 5k USD each.
* I guess I need to supply the software for that too? For free? Again is that actually fair? What if it has trade secrets? But sure, let's say I have to give it to you for free...
* Well it's NI, you need a license to drive all this stuff and to use the modules we have. 5K USD per year.
So now Joe's Corner Mobile Phone repairs can happily repair your 300 USD phone. He just needs that jig which totals 57k USD BOM and 5K per year on going.
But I published it all, he can build it himself.
I have met your requirements.
Jigs shouldn't cost that much you say? Well they can and do (and even more). That's the reality. Are you going to ban them? Regulate them too? It's the equivalent of banning / regulating a compiler (ie absolutely absurd).
> You can use glue as long as it can be removed without damaging the device, and the type of glue is documented and available for purchase.
I already addressed this in my earlier comment. The easily removable glue is crap. But sure here is the glue part number: GLU-123678-JJ Mfg: GOOD-GLUE-GUYS
Btw it's made using a trade secret formula from GOOD-GLUE-GUYS. Do I have to keep it in inventory as well. Or are you going to make GOOD-GLUE-GUYs (who is based outside the US) publish their trade secret formula? We just have the same issue as above. Do I also need to supply to you the special oven for it? Or is the part number enough? (btw that oven weighs 1 ton and is 500k USD, but you got the part number).
> Mandating a level of skill is not necessary. If a repair requires high skill, like desoldering, they can find someone to do that repair, or sell the device to someone willing to do that repair before purchasing a new device. The level of skill required to repair a device will become known, although I'm also not opposed to requiring that be declared up front.
If you don't mandate skill requirements, then a manufacturer will just happily NOT make ANY adjustments to make a thing "more-repairable" whatever that means. Example that meets your legislative requirements:
You need to swap the CPU it's a 0.1mm pitch 2048 ball BGA. Here's the part number. Please note: this is a stacked design where the RAM chip (also 2048 balls) is soldered ON TOP of the physical CPU. The practical reality is that few humans on Earth, with very expensive equipment can do this. Joe's Corner Mobile Repairs is not one of them. The reality in manufacturing is that this faulty board would be binned because cost+time+risk means it's not worth it.
If it was mega expensive then a fix maybe attempted, either using a very highly skilled technician and an xray afterwards to verify OR the tech removes the part and you run it through the 1-10million USD SMT line with a special program and IF you are very confident in your process engineering you might decide you don't need to xray it.
All that said, I have met your requirements as stated in your proposed legislation, but it is of no practical use to you.
Perhaps we just swap the whole motherboard? Well you didn't legislate that. Say you do somehow (skill requirements perhaps?), now it's 50% of the cost of a new device because the reality is that that's where most of the cost is. Put on top of that labour at a FAIR price to Joe in his corner repair store in the US and it's just not worth it now. A consumer will just buy a new device (without being compensated by the manufacturer).
> Perfect is the enemy of the good. If your phone is a brick and an improper fix makes it useful at a much lower cost than a whole new phone, that's all that matters. Sorry, but your comment just sounds super elitist. Even if only 50% of devices are successfully repaired because they're being done "improperly", that's still a 50% reduction in ewaste.
This is nothing to do with perfect. This is serviced to an acceptable standard. I don't mean to sound elitist, but I make no apology for defending my workers who are like highly trained mechanics that will properly assemble / repair your car. Joe's corner mechanic using cooking oil in your car engine rather than 20-5W is not an acceptable repair IMO. But if cooking oil gets you 50% success in repair and you're happy with that, well all power to you. I don't think most regular people would agree though.
> Then don't. I don't see why the manufacturer should be on the hook to repair a counterfeit.
I should have explained more: These counterfeits in particular (and many of them for modern products) are sooo good WE couldn't tell that they were counterfeit initially. It manifested as a % increase in the number of failures in the field. We thought it was a genuine QA issue and wasted 100s of hours of engineer and QA time and easily tens of thousands of dollars trying to figure this out.
We eventually developed a special jig to tell the difference to deny warranty claims. But issues like this is why manufacturers are and will continue to go hard on protecting their supply chains which normally also means the device is harder to repair especially for an outside party to repair.
Btw, The open documentation of everything for right-to-repair, while laudable, it is something for a fantasy world. Companies will fight tooth and nail to stop that information getting out and the politicians will oblige them. Also, you just gave the counterfeiters the keys to the kingdom for making fakes and fake repair parts. You're not going to "legislate them away" because they're not in the US or any country with decent courts, laws and IP protection.
Closer to home, I am trying to develop my own hardware products. I am a one person team. Now you are going to force me to publish a big chunk of my IP? You've just killed me by counterfeit and giving the keys to the big companies who will squish me. You think I have the money to litigate against a big company? It just means I won't bother. You've just entrenched the big companies even more.
Fighting both of these issues requires barriers like lasering off part numbers, spare parts with encryption keys etc. because the problem is THAT big. No it's not a perfect barrier, but just like parking your car in a bad neighbourhood: park next to a better car and have a steering lock so that when the thief comes a long they go for the easier target. It's a stupid cat and mouse game, but it is what it is.
> I disagree 200%. I've repaired countless phones, TVs, computers and other devices for myself and friends and family, all without help of legislation that would ensure the availability of parts and instructions, and the right to repair would only expand this trend. Most people wouldn't do this themselves even with the right to repair, but they are almost certainly within 2 degrees of separation of someone that would.
Again laundable and more power to you but you are super unique and niche. Also I personally don't want your repaired-with-vegetable-oil car engine thank you. Further, you fundamentally cannot repair something for infinite time and the technology for something like a phone moves so fast that that prospect is silly. You are merely delaying the item making it into waste. It's going to end up in landfill eventually. It's MAYBE possible that you will reduce the amount getting in there, which is nice but it doesn't address the fundamental gap in our waste management of e-waste where the ONLY (IMO) proper solution is material recycling to fully close the loop. Yes it will need to subsidised (maybe in an ideal world eventually that won't be needed). But, to me, paying that subsidy is preferable to adding to our debt of biosphere destruction.
Btw, all that stock the manufacturer had to keep for repairing stuff for right-to-repair ... you know where any excess is going when it's not needed AND the accountants can write it off? Straight to landfill. To me, refunding the customer seems preferable.
So again, right-to-repair MIGHT reduce e-waste, it will certainly not eliminate it.
>You're also looking at this very myopically through a specific tech industry lens and ignoring one of the main motivations of the right to repair: super expensive farm equipment. John Deere has a stranglehold on farmers who tend to be very DIY, and this has been driving up their costs and sometimes even driving them out of business because they can't access service or parts at affordable prices, and they can't repair the devices themselves. Breaking this stranglehold would be huge.
This is why I caveated my initial post with "won't ever work for something like a consumer phone". Is John Deere one of the main motivations now? That's not what I've observed in media. Maybe that's where it started, but it has grown to encompass many more devices like a mobile phone.
I have many four letter words for John Deere and it is not an industry I have worked in. But again I think a solid, compulsory, no carve outs, warranty would help immensely. Personally I think 25 years is fair for a tractor. Maybe slap in a SLA too like 1 week maximum time to repair. Do that and now you've just made all the issues, with spare part costs, reliability, distribution, inventory, a 3rd party repair network, fabrication by authorised 3rd parties etc. you've made it ALL John Deere's problem. All those managers, lawyers and bean counters will suddenly be driving the engineers and ops people in a direction that (IMO) is fair to the consumer. And don't worry they'll be just fine. They'll rejig those spreadsheets and solve the problem VERY quickly.
They will kick and scream but you've given them very little leeway AND you've given politicians and advocates an easy moral argument: "We think 25 years is fair, especially since there are tractors that are 100+ years old that STILL work just fine."
As others have noted, technical and more quality content, especially the one found in subreddits that are more composed in nature is becoming more scarce and rapidly declining in quality. Bots, constant reposts and low quality comments and posts in contrast are rewarded and gain more exposure than ever. "It's just another phase" is a very light way of putting it. Reddit is becoming - maybe arguably has become - a former shell of itself more akin to 9gag than what it used to be.
At least this is a loosing game for Google, since this is client side behaviour.