Right-to-Repair Groups Don't Buy Apple's Answers To Congress (wired.com) 110
Last week, Apple responded to a series of questions that the US House Judiciary Committee sent to it back in September as part of a broader antitrust probe. Apple answered a series of questions about its hardware repair programs. It emphasized that it doesn't restrict repairs or refuse to repair gadgets that might have been fixed previously by unauthorized technicians. For right-to-repair advocates, though, Apple's answers weren't good enough. From a report: Proponents of a more open source approach to repairing gadgets say that Apple's on-the-record responses are examples of "expert question-dodging," or in some cases "downright false." Apple's responses have even raised questions about the definition of a "repair" -- a kind of consumer tech version of what the meaning of the word "is" is. That's according to iFixit, a business built on DIY electronics repairs and one of the more consistently vocal groups in the world of product repairs and sustainability. Now the right-to-repair arm of the US Public Interest Research Group is also weighing in, saying Apple is trying to "weave around key criticisms." The group is lobbying for Congress to take a harder look at Apple's claims. "The fact is that Apple, and many other manufacturers, take all manner of actions that restrict repair, which result in higher costs for consumers and a faster rate of obsolescence," says Nathan Proctor, director of the US PIRG's Right to Repair campaign. Proctor also argues that when Apple offers replacement products instead of repairing a device, it is effectively refusing to repair.
Corporatism is killing capitalism (Score:5, Insightful)
We need to start splitting up big corporations, pronto, before they become authoritarian replacements for government. We've done it before. We let the rich convince us that splitting up monopolies and "too big to fail" corporations was no longer important. They lied, in order to consolidate power over us. But we still have the power to vote in people who will enforce anti-trust laws, and take back the power and wealth big corporations have stolen from us.
Only by doing that can we prevent the corporatists from destroying capitalism and even democracy itself.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for the comment and your sig. Just one of the best things I've read in awhile.
Reminds me all too well of how Nestle wants the license to water...
My biggest issue with the current trend in capitalism is that it seems like a pyramid scheme that requires an ever expanding customer base to sustain. That is literally unsustainable.
We are on the verge of having a real existential awakening...keep going the way we are going and we will be forcefully disabused of our power over the world, or start taking
Re:Corporatism is killing capitalism (Score:5, Interesting)
Reminds me all too well of how Nestle wants the license to water...
the all-important difference is, Nestle seriously and in fact, controls essentially the entire potable water supply of many third-world nations.
By contrast, Apple controls about 10% of the markets in which it operates. That means that consumers have a 90% chance, worst-case, to completely ignore Apple's products, and their Policies.
The two examples aren't even in the same statistical universe.
Conflation of ideas (Score:2)
There's two different genres of the right to repair. One is voiding the warranty or not supplying parts/manuals for trained technicians. it's not unreasonable to ask consumers to not do the repairs themselves and still expect a warranty. A professional will be insured against claims and has training and allows apple not to have to deal with every one just a subset. Much like for example like how you don't order parts for your car or bike from fords or shimano, you get then from a dealer. But if they wo
Re: (Score:3)
There's two different genres of the right to repair. One is voiding the warranty or not supplying parts/manuals for trained technicians.
That's actually two different things.
The other is sealing the units or designing them in a way that is extremely fragile or requires very complex equipment to safely handle.
There's also at least also a fourth way to prevent repairs, which is baking DRM into parts so that only official parts can be installed. Apple claims that they do this in order to protect users from counterfeit parts, but in fact they are doing it to protect Apple's revenue streams from cheap replacement parts. They sell expensive repair services, they sell expensive replacement parts, and they also sell expensive equipment to replace devices which they have made unecono
Re: (Score:3)
Apple's control is (currently) due to their ability to prevent anyone from building their own compatible devices. Under current copyright law and the DMCA, there is no way to break Apple's monopoly. Which is why right to repair is even a thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Nestle's control of the potable water supply is due to them having built the facilities to purify local water to make it potable. Nothing (except expense) stops someone else from building their own water purification facility, thereby breaking Nestle's monopoly.
Absolutely wrong. Nestle has been buying up safe drinking water all over the world. Not just the third world, but also right here in the USA. They bought Calistoga, which in turn bought (among other sources) a spring that I used to get water from when I lived in Whispering Pines, an unincorporated community near Cobb, CA. Not only was the water free, but it was pure mountain spring water, just like the commercials say. People who live in that neighborhood now have to pay for municipal water, and the quality
Re: (Score:1)
You are out of touch with the legal interpretation of "market control" in line with the Sherman act and subsequent case law. The goal was to prevent restraints of free competition in business and commercial transactions which tended to restrict production, raise prices, or otherwise control the market to the detriment of purchasers or consumers of goods and services [wikipedia.org]
10% of 90% of whatever is irrelevant. What matters is whether the trust-making actor controls its market or not, and thug Apple most certainly d
Re: (Score:2)
thug Apple most certainly does control its market
If you disingenuously define "the market" as "The market of iPhones", then yes. And guess what? That's completely fine.
However, if you (more honestly) define "the market" as "Cellphones", then Apple's non-monopoly becomes abundantly clear.
Re: (Score:1)
So do you have an iphone, mac book or other apple product?
For being in just 10% of the market they seem to have at least one product in more like 90% of the houses.
Re: (Score:2)
So do you have an iphone, mac book or other apple product?
For being in just 10% of the market they seem to have at least one product in more like 90% of the houses.
Your point being that they make products that people like?
But please tell me what markets in which Apple actually has a monopoly.
Cellphones? Please!
Computers? Not even close!
Set-Top Streaming Boxes? Nope!
Tablets? Well, maybe in the sense that "Consumers overwhelmingly decide to purchase iPads; but that's certainly not Apple's fault! That's clearly the fault of Microsoft and Google, who just don't understand how to address that market, even after trying for multiple decades!
But even there, there are multipl
Re:Corporatism is killing capitalism (Score:5, Insightful)
Why try to waste time and money breaking a company up when it’s far easier to remove the unfair protections they enjoy and letting other businesses do the job for us. If you don’t fix the broken laws that create the problem in the first place then you’ll only wind up in the same situation again.
Re:Corporatism is killing capitalism (Score:5, Insightful)
You act as if the "unfair protections" of law are the only noncompetitive, anti-capitalist aspect of corporatism, and that is untrue. Capitalism requires robust competition to drive down prices. Corporatism captures markets, making them unfree and non-competitive. Big companies with large amounts of cash can always destroy smaller competition even without the help of "unfair laws."
I am interested in what you consider to be unfair laws though. Are we talking environmental and labor laws? Because those are there for very good reasons, and even if getting rid of them did lower barriers to entry, the side effects would be very bad for all of us.
Instead, what I would like to see is actual government agencies designed to make compliance with any law easy and cheap for all sizes of company. That would remove the barrier to entry while preserving the good effects of the laws.
Of course, that will not satisfy the people whose real agenda is getting rid of those laws, and for whom the economic argument is merely an excuse. Those people want to diminish the power of government so that corporations have all the power and democracy is just a shell, with no real power to reign in the abuses of wealthy elite.
Re: (Score:2)
Splitting them up is hardly necessary. Removing all of the laws or regulations that favor them which they lobbied to have enacted is sufficient. The problem in this case is that Apple is trying to limit and restrict competition. Remove their ability to do that and they can no longer soak consumers any more than the competition can.
Why try to waste time and money breaking a company up when it’s far easier to remove the unfair protections they enjoy and letting other businesses do the job for us. If you don’t fix the broken laws that create the problem in the first place then you’ll only wind up in the same situation again.
I'd be interested in seeing some citations of the "laws or regulations" that favor them. A cursory search provided nothing. I figured since you brought it up you might have some in mind.
More likely that these companies have lobbied to have regulations removed.
I fear that blindly denouncing all regulation can have disastrous consequences.
Re:Corporatism is killing capitalism (Score:4, Informative)
This is well written, well cited, and very pertinent :
http://law.emory.edu/elj/conte... [emory.edu]
An excerpt:
"Congress responded to the rise of the Internet with a flurry of laws. These are the laws of this fruitful period, in chronological order: the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA), 36 the Internet Tax Freedom Act, 37 the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 (COPPA), 38 the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), 39 the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA), 40 and the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (E-Sign). 41
Taken together, these statutes helped undergird a legal framework that proved conducive to the development of Internet-based services. While the titles of these statutes often professed consumer-oriented goals—a remarkable list including decency, tax freedom, privacy, and consumer protection—commercial concerns were never far from the table, as we will see. I review below the CDA and the DMCA, statutes that proved especially significant for Silicon Valley enterprises over the course of the following decade. 42 I also consider the crucial judicial interpretations that bent the law to foster web innovation."
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, this is fundamentally a government-created problem So it falls upon governm
Re: (Score:2)
Apple does the same thing to prevent anyone from making their generic replacement screens look like a genuine screen to iOS.
IF they do, you can be sure that it is because they get tired of people getting third-rate aftermarket display assemblies, then taking them to the Apple Store to complain that they got a defective display, expecting warranty replacement.
And yes, it does happen enough times...
But curiously enough, despite the fearmongering, my iPhone 6 Plus, with its replacement aftermarket display assembly, works just fine under iOS 12.x; so I'm not sure what the so-called problem is.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There are times when something is too powerful. If one administration decides to put regulations in place, another will just remove them and say that the engines of capitalism are unfettered and in high gear. The reason why we are not stuck with company towns, and the mega robber baron trusts of the 1800s is that they were broken up. Not slapped on the wrist and told not to do it again, but broken up, so that power base cannot go back to its usual ways in 4-8 years when the Oval Office has a new occupant
Re: (Score:2)
Someone mod this up please ^^
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Splitting them up is hardly necessary. Removing all of the laws or regulations that favor them which they lobbied to have enacted is sufficient. The problem in this case is that Apple is trying to limit and restrict competition. Remove their ability to do that and they can no longer soak consumers any more than the competition can.
Why try to waste time and money breaking a company up when it’s far easier to remove the unfair protections they enjoy and letting other businesses do the job for us. If you don’t fix the broken laws that create the problem in the first place then you’ll only wind up in the same situation again.
You know what's even easier?
Just don't buy their Products. That'll show 'em!
See? No Congressional Hearings. No Legislation. No problem.
People bitch and moan about ever-increasing and intrusive governmental control, and then, when they have the ultimate power of the free-market, they still run to Mommy.
What a bunch of entitled snowflakes! Vote with your fucking FEET!
Re:Corporatism is killing capitalism (Score:4, Interesting)
Your mistake here is in assuming that corporatists allow a free market. They don't, and they do not need the help of government in order to capture markets, making them unfree. They just need to exploit the standard failure modes of the free market: imbalance of information, natural monopoly, and externalities. They can also use their immense wealth to distort the free market, for instance by bankrupting or buying out smaller competitors.
We are not entitled snowflakes. We are citizens of a constitutional republic, and we are in charge. If you want to do business in our republic, you must follow our laws. Those laws are whatever we choose, that is compatible with our constitution.
One person has very, very little power to effect change through the free market. Sure, they can organize together to achieve more power than any one average person has. But that strategy has another name: government. In our country, unlike authoritarian dictatorships, government is not something imposed from above. We fought a war to guarantee that. Government is just us, unless we allow otherwise.
Organizing together in the form of voting in representatives who will enact our desires is much more efficient at achieving our ends than simply participating in commercial exchange. Yes I realize that people with a lot of power resent this fact. That sucks for them, I guess? They are still protected by the constitution, just as we all are. If we want to take back the power they took from us, well, they honestly have no recourse. Suck it, wealthy elites. Be glad we have a constitutional republic. The alternative is pitchforks and bonfires that smell of freshly roasting rich pig.
Re: (Score:2)
Organizing together in the form of voting in representatives who will enact our desires is much more efficient at achieving our ends than simply participating in commercial exchange. Yes I realize that people with a lot of power resent this fact. That sucks for them, I guess? They are still protected by the constitution, just as we all are. If we want to take back the power they took from us, well, they honestly have no recourse. Suck it, wealthy elites. Be glad we have a constitutional republic. The alternative is pitchforks and bonfires that smell of freshly roasting rich pig.
Damn Right! Power to the People!
Couldn't agree more.
However, you already have the Ultimate Power of the Purse: Yours.
BTW, the Constitution doesn't enter into contracts between two private parties (like a sales agreement). Tort law does; but not Constitutional Law. You simply don't have a Constitutional Right to, well, anything between private parties. The Constitution is the "Contract" between the Government and all other entities (generally-speaking, Citizens and Businesses and other non-breathing entities
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, but I do have a constitutional right to interfere in trade between two other parties. For example, if you hire a hit man to kill your boss, even though this does not impact me directly, I will call the fucking cops on your murdering ass. If you contract with a third party to engage in activities that pollute a public space, I will call the fucking cops on your polluting ass. If you hire someone and put them in unsafe conditions, I will have your labor abusing ass thrown the fuck in jail.
In short, if I g
also good for dealing with health inspectors (Score:1)
... food poisoning... just go somewhere else!
you want everyone to become kale-eating boy-cotters? conflake!
Re: (Score:2)
You know what's even easier?
Just don't buy their Products. That'll show 'em!
I agree with you. 100%.
Next question: How do I know at purchase time that the thing is going to be a brick five minutes after the warranty expires, because the manufacturer has imposed repair costs that exceed the value of the item?
My answer is "truth in labeling" legislation. It is a tried and true answer that works on everything from the caloric value of food to the energy use of an appliance. Make the manufacturers state clearly and loudly up front that you won't be able to fix the thing, then let yo
Re: (Score:3)
My answer is "truth in labeling" legislation. It is a tried and true answer that works on everything from the caloric value of food to the energy use of an appliance. Make the manufacturers state clearly and loudly up front that you won't be able to fix the thing, then let you decide.
As a kid growing up in the 1960s and '70s, I clearly remember many electronic devices having an obviously-standard notice on the back:
"No user serviceable parts inside"
The reason for this notice was, prior to that, pretty much anything electronic contained vacuum tubes (which are almost universally user-replaceable). It did not mean that someone with the proper skills would instantly die from the released demons inside as soon as they took the back off the radio.
And by the way, as iFixit has readily demonst
Re: (Score:2)
Alright.
Now redo that paragraph with a third party fingerprint sensor.
what's hard about breaking companies up? (Score:1)
easiest thing in the world.
Re: (Score:2)
> splitting up big corporations
Don't. Micro-managing corporations will just make things worse.
Instead, eliminate corporations, except in very limited circumstances and for limited times. A corporate charter should be extraordinary.
Partnerships, where the owners face liability for the company's actions, are much more aligned on incentives. *Then*, the courts might reform.
This is how America operated for the first century. JD Rockefeller mastered the art of bribing politicians to change the law to perm
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with this in principle. Corporations should be limited like they originally were when the Dutch invented them. The charter should specify exactly what business they will perform, where, and for how long. The corporation would be forbidden from performing other business, or outside the specified area, and at the end of the specified time period, it should be automatically dissolved, with the assets being apportioned to the owners. Twenty to thirty years is a decent time frame. I think the VOC was or
Re: (Score:2)
So, YOU want to be legally liable for the decisions made by the people who run companies that your 401k/IRA/whatever own stock in? Because that's what you just asked for. Do remember that when you have a 401k/IRA/stock-plan, then YOU are one of the owners that you wish to be liable...
Basically, what you're asking for is that the majority of existing corporations go out of business. Because things
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck yes, ANY people profiting off of criminal activity should be liable. Do you not see the perverse incentives to break the law built into shared stock, limited liability companies? Stock owners can pretend they are not to blame for what folks do with their money and in their name, but they are. They funded crime, and they should pay the price.
As for retirement accounts, fuck 'em. They suck. They were invented by corporate greed heads who wanted to transfer pension money into funds they could rake fees of
Re: (Score:2)
Do you not see the perverse incentives to break the law built into shared stock, limited liability companies?
So if I'm on the board of a non-profit, and some other board member embezzles money, should I have to pay that out of my own personal funds? Or any sort of volunteer organization? What if I'm renting out a room from a landlord, and the landlord uses the money to buy meth? I mean, I payed the guy -- it was my cash that bought the meth. Sure, I wasn't directly involved or knowledgeable of the actual purchase, but as with the stock holder, my money went toward the crime.
They were invented by corporate greed heads who wanted to transfer pension money into funds they could rake fees off of.
Pensions for companies were ALWAYS a bad
Re: (Score:2)
Dumb example. it's not the corporation that is committing the crime in your example, the corporation is the victim. Why would anyone else be liable?
I see you've swallowed the corporate line on pensions. Might want to educate yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re:Corporatism is killing capitalism (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple's far from the only corporation guilty of this, but they are a corporation guilty of this. Fuck them. Right to repair would make a lot of people's lives at least marginally better (not just Apple device owners, though them too) at the cost of some unethical corporate parasites making money off lying to their own customers. I hope they fucking rot.
Re: (Score:2)
If a company is too big to fail, then it is too big to be alone.
If you want Capitalism and don't want Socialism (well actually Communism, as socialist governments are actually capitalist too, but don't tell the right wing that their heads may explode), then industry needs to stay robust with redundancy allowing any company to fail, without having a massive impact on the economy.
Apple oddly enough, while a giant company can go out of business today and probably inconvenience consumers, as some Apple only ser
Re: (Score:2)
Full disclosure, I prefer communism but I wanted some intelligent discussion of the problem and mentioning a preference for communism is a sure fire way to get nothing but trolls and flames in response, at least here at Slashdot.
I believe modern communications infrastructure could provide a robust replacement for the price signals lacking in a planned economy. As proof, I present our modern planned economy. Yes, corporatism, with its distinct lack of real competition is just as much a centrally planned econ
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with communism is it flaw in implementation for a large number of people.
Problems are not in the ideology but the implementation.
Some ideologies are easier to implement in a way that is net benefit. Other take a lot more work.
Communism on country levels have turn to a dictatorship or demands loyalty to the party. Because to work in commune with each other everyone will need to be working for the same goal, and following the party path.
Socialism isn't Communism Light, But were elected officials o
Re: (Score:2)
The reason that communism fails on a country level is not a flaw in the implementation. It is because asshole authoritarian capitalists will do everything in their power to destroy a real, functioning communist society. And defending against an overwhelming force such as world wide capitalism will result in one of two outcomes: defeat, or descent into authoritarianism. For examples, look at any country in central our south America that has tried to enact socialist policies in the last 100 years. We simply w
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with communism is it flaw in implementation for a large number of people.
Problems are not in the ideology but the implementation.
Some ideologies are easier to implement in a way that is net benefit. Other take a lot more work.
The problem with all forms of government is they are all wonderful ideas, but then people get involved,
There will always be a situation of "Some animals are more equal than others" in any form of Government that involves people. And more importantly, their ambitions.
Doesn't matter if it's Communism, Socialism, "Democracy", or even outright Anarchy. There will always be haves and have-nots. Communism is just one of the forms of "Governance" that points-out those disparities quite clearly.
Re: (Score:2)
am i the only one who thinks "too big to fail" implies "too big to be safe" ?
Re: (Score:2)
We need to start splitting up big corporations, pronto, before they become authoritarian replacements for government.
I think they're probably happiest in their current role of authoring and purchasing the passage of legislation. That way the masses of asses will think it's all government's fault, and pay no attention to the men behind the curtain. Whether we break up these corporations or not, we need to end the influence of corporate money on government. Groups of corporations with like ideals can purchase legislation just as easily as monolithic corporations can.
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely agreed. We also need to get rid of the idea that corporations are people with the same rights as natural persons. It was a note, written in a vaguely related supreme court decision by a damn law clerk, that we now use to support the idea. That's nuts, law clerks don't get to rewrite the constitution to their liking, and anyone who knows the history of corporations knows they were never intended to have the rights of natural persons.
Re: (Score:2)
Corporatism is not just another word for syndicalism. It is not how the word is used today. Please stop abusing the word by trying to force archaic meaning onto a thoroughly modern concept,
I stopped at... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
"Don't buy Apple". Yep, that's good advice.
It is better advice than "Hep me, Mr. Government! That mean old Apple made me buy an iPhone and now they won't let me fix it!"
I'm part owner of the government... (Score:1)
... and I'll use it as I see fit. You can whine about the mean old government but our military stole this land fair and square by the old rules so, so very sorry about there being LAWS, but I suggest you get used to it, whiner.
Re: I stopped at... (Score:2)
The thing is, Apple is not stopping you to repair your iDevice. What people like Rossman and co are complaining about is that Apple should do it for the cost that a non-authorized repair service can do it and force them to stock up and sell or give away for free parts that have perhaps a market of 1000 sales, years after the warranty had ended.
I saw some of these "right to repair" videos claim that they should be able to repair a 9 year old machine for less than $100 because the chip they needed (although t
Re: (Score:1)
Apples T2 "security " chip says otherwise
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Mod parent WAY up!
Finally, a voice of reason from someone who obviously knows which end of the soldering iron to hold...
Even with its techy-readership, I would venture to guess that not 1 in 1000 Slashdot readers could successfully replace a BGA IC or even something as prosaic as a SMT capacitor, and not 1 in 10,000 have the equipment to do so (and no, a toaster-oven doesn't count).
All that forcing "right to repair" will do is shift the meme seamlessly from "They won't let me repair this!" to "They purposel
Re: (Score:2)
Even with its techy-readership, I would venture to guess that not 1 in 1000 Slashdot readers could successfully replace a BGA IC or even something as prosaic as a SMT capacitor, and not 1 in 10,000 have the equipment to do so (and no, a toaster-oven doesn't count).
So what? The right to repair doesn't apply only to people making their own repairs. It also applies to people having their products repaired by a third party. And by the way, all you need to replace a SMT capacitor is a temperature-controlled tweezer iron. That's not even expensive any more. Also, a toaster oven with a temperature controller totally counts.
Re: (Score:1)
As someone who's repaired phones and tablets, as well as replaced batteries... it's not rocket science...
Re: The right to repair will backfire (Score:1)
Plenty of Youtube channels show that many people are able to do repairs the manufacturer claimed but worth it or too expensive.
don't tell me what I want (Score:1)
and I won't tell you what you want. deal?
Re: (Score:3)
Damn, what TF is this thread!?! Slashdot is going down the drain with its user base if some shitty folks tell you to "not open your devices" cause it may violate DMCA, they may be burnt by the battery, or "Ooooohhh they read and signed the EULA that says I cannot open the thing. You violated your device!"
Where is the "iFixIt crowd when we need them!?! Are there any DIYers around? That's a sad day for /.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, your "flamebait" mod is wrong, and there is no "idiot" mod. And it's not clear that "troll" would fit. So If I had mod points, I'd just mod you overrated at -1.
Your argument is so stupid that it's hard to know where to start responding. The basic answer is devices should be "open at own risk". And "fix at own risk". Not "do not open" or "do not fix".
Beyond that it's hard to know where to go, as I think I disagree with just about every assertion you made. Either than, or I consider them injurious
Unhappy by nature (Score:4, Insightful)
When did any of these groups that make demands ever say they were happy, or even satisfied with the response?
It's odd that so many people join up with the predictable outcome of never being happy.
you mean... (Score:2)
... when did progress stop and we just stayed put? yeah, never. But you're lucky, you're always happy anyway!
Re: (Score:2)
More like "why are we listening to these people who are going to complain no matter what we do?"
you're not listening, you're fighting them (Score:1)
why do that? Things have a lot better to get still.
Re: Unhappy by nature (Score:1)
Your comment, on the other hand, takes it up for the corporate view, and against tinkering and fixing stuff. That mentality doesn't belong on Slashdot.
Also the Right to Tinker (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Old guy here, I remember able to get schematic diagrams of electronic equipment from HT220 manuals to Howard Sams repair manuals for TV sets. In my early days before college I learned how to read schematics, see how signals processed, what parts, etc. I didn't modify these items (too poor for a HT220, I knew better to not mess with TV sets with 15KV flyback transformers). However, this enabled me to learn and I'm sure many others have done the same, some probably modified a TV set or two. Probably not successful but learned what's inside rather than a iphone which is very mysterious.
Hey, I'm an old-guy too.
And I fondly remember poring through schematics and buying a few Sams Photofacts (RIP). These things served me well in my early youth.
However, in something like, for example, a cellphone, the Sams photofact only tells a part of the story. So much of the "Theory of Operation" of an Embedded Device lies not in what can be shown in a schematic; but how the invisible hand of software works in conjunction with that visible hardware.
And even if they were to publish hundreds of pages of lis
Re: (Score:2)
embedded devices, that still wouldn't do much good for troubleshooting; because you can't just "stick a meter probe" in the middle of pre-compiled firmware.
But let's talk about phones as compared to telephones like the Bell System model 500. What are the frequencies used? (no info) Transmitter power? (no info) Receiver sensititivity? (no info). I'm sure there is information out there as there are some people have hacked phones (exception iPhone which is all part of the debate). But at times to get a schematic for something can be a challenge. For me I feel all this discussion about how we need to expand STEM but yet we severely limit access to devices. It's as
Re: (Score:2)
Back in the late 80s I used a second hand B&O receiver (a 3000-2) which was a lovely thing with teak case and aluminium front. It started playing up, so I took it apart to investigate. It turned out that attached to the inside of the case was an envelope containing the schematics for the amplifier, with the circuit design on one side and the precise layout on the other with indications for test points, expected voltages etc.
I still use that experience as the gold standard for repairability - sure, tech
Re: (Score:2)
Well, a diagram of wiring to an IC won't do much to help you figure out what the IC is doing...not in any useful detail. But it could be quite useful in figuring out how to repair something.
Re: (Score:2)
There actually were a fair bit of diagrams with my first Sony Flatscreen TV I got back in 2007. Not complete but enough to diagnose some signal paths and power supply issues.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The single most important element of right-to-repair legislation, and the one we should all be voting for, is in regards to consumables/wear items.
It should be illegal to manufacture or import for resale any device into which wear items, such as batteries, have been glued.
If the end-user can't easily replace the battery without common household tools, then it should be illegal to make or sell that device. Full stop.
(possibly some limited exceptions for things like medical devices)
How about this:
Do your own damned due dilgence, and simply and completely avoid the problem by not purchasing items which are designed in derogation with your own private opinion on what should be illegal.
Leave the rest of us out of it. We just want cellphones that don't require two hands to hold.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll follow that advice when it becomes commonplace to disassemble products at Best Buy to confirm that I can replace the wear items.
As I stated above, the answer is "truth in labeling" legislation that require the reparability of the device to be displayed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What needs to also happen is that parts need to be available for a number of years after the device is discontinued. For example, a cellphone's battery, screen, digitizer, case, and other parts.
The ironic thing is that a device maker will make just as much money, if not more selling user repairable parts as they did on the main device. For example, BMW isn't losing money in their parts department by any means. Having a more repair friendly phone doesn't mean it will turn into a 20 pound brick by any mean
Re: (Score:2)
The ironic thing is that a device maker will make just as much money, if not more selling user repairable parts as they did on the main device. For example, BMW isn't losing money in their parts department by any means.
Automakers want to sell new products, whether they're inferior or superior for your purposes. BMW makes more money selling you a new car than they do selling you parts (except for engine rebuild parts for an M3, perhaps, which is why there are so many M3 LS swaps.) Audi has discontinued many parts for the original A8, which is far and away the lightest and thus most nimble and fun to drive version of the vehicle. That's why I got rid of mine, it was just getting to be too costly and difficult to maintain. F
These Probes are Ridiculous (Score:2)
Maybe I'm just a cynic, but I'm pretty sure the main purpose of these antitrust probes is to force the tech companies to make more political donations. It would be nice if our government took antitrust and anticompetitive behaviors seriously, but if they did they would pass meaningful legislation to limit these activities. As it stands, even if the DOJ decides that a corporate merger isn't in the best interests of consumers, it's still very likely that they won't win in court because there are so few legisl
that doesn't change much... (Score:1)
... the law has to be enforced.
hollywood bookkeeping make it look like the lose $ (Score:3)
Now when they say it's $600 to fix and then some buys a new $1000 system They book that as an new sale and not repair income.
Replacing is a Refusal to Repair?!? (Score:1)
From TFS:
Proctor also argues that when Apple offers replacement products instead of repairing a device, it is effectively refusing to repair.
Show me one, even one, company for the past century that doesn't have the clause to the effect of "Company has, at their sole discretion, the right to repair or replace the defective item..."
So how in the HOLY FUCK is that "Refusing to Repair"? That guy, Proctor, is Certifiable.
If anyone thinks that a Repair Department is, overall, a Profit Center, they haven't worked in a business with a Repair Department.
There is massive overhead in the Repair handling process that relentlessly eats-into each and
Re: (Score:2)
It's a pretty simple concept.
Customer brings in device outside of warranty for repair. Genius looks at device and says the repair costs exceed Apples accepted range and even if you are willing to pay their crazy price they will refuse and only offer a replacement (not for free but usually with some discount).
There have been many reported cases of this online and I know of at least 3 personally where they weren't even given a repair option just told a replacement cost. In the end all 3 visits resulted in n
you vote with your wallet (Score:1)
I'll vote with the Judicial and Legislative system. And if you don't like it, vote with your wallet.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem isn't just a single company, cell phones without user replaceable batteries is almost standard. You don't need to give away the secret sauce to allow someone to change a battery. The second that product hit's the shelf anyone can open it up and look and the smart ones can still repair them if they can find the parts the secret sauce is out.
Re: (Score:2)
how in the HOLY FUCK is that "Refusing to Repair"?
Some people just want a working device. But some people don't want to produce extra pollution. Replacing the device doesn't help with that. Repairing it does. Making a device effectively unrepairable is harmful to the biosphere upon which we all depend for survival, and should be illegal for that reason even if for no others — though IMO there are other reasons why devices should be repairable.
Re: (Score:1)
If anyone thinks that a Repair Department is, overall, a Profit Center, they haven't worked in a business with a Repair Department.
There is massive overhead in the Repair handling process that relentlessly eats-into each and every Repair. Companies offer Repair Services because they have to for governmental and/or customer-relations reasons, not because they want to, or make a significant income (let alone profit) from it.
I'd say that anyone who thinks that is simply familiar with one of the industries that "right to repair" is aimed at, automobiles. I promise that the garage at your local dealership is very much a profit center.
It's also beside the point, since there is still very much a problem with vendors designing products that cannot be repaired in order to force new sales. When an entire industry is engaging in this practice, particularly one with significant barriers to entry, there is no opportunity and thus no
Component-Level Repair (Score:5, Interesting)
One of the problems with Apple is that they won't replace what's broken, insisting on replacing entire subsystems at extreme cost and then using that to upsell new devices. If anybody ought to be best at component-level repair it ought to be the OEM.
You can watch Lou Rossmann do multitudinous $200 repairs, on his YouTube channel, after Apple has told people devices are irreparable or would cost $1400 to repair. A million people subscribe:
https://www.youtube.com/user/r... [youtube.com]
It can't be overstated that Apple simply *won't* do most repairs. Their misdirection about "not making a profit" on repairs is irrelevant. Lou makes a profit on much cheaper repairs, and if Apple can't run a competitive repair business that shouldn't give them special legal protections. A market would naturally punish such inefficient operations but Apple wants government handouts like customs interdictions, intellectual property, anti-circumvention laws, etc. so they can continue to upsell average citizens who lack the information to make better choices. Note that upsells don't reflect on the P&L of the repair silo.
Re: (Score:2)
One of the problems with Apple is that they won't replace what's broken, insisting on replacing entire subsystems at extreme cost and then using that to upsell new devices. If anybody ought to be best at component-level repair it ought to be the OEM.
You can watch Lou Rossmann do multitudinous $200 repairs, on his YouTube channel, after Apple has told people devices are irreparable or would cost $1400 to repair. A million people subscribe:
https://www.youtube.com/user/r... [youtube.com]
It can't be overstated that Apple simply *won't* do most repairs. Their misdirection about "not making a profit" on repairs is irrelevant. Lou makes a profit on much cheaper repairs, and if Apple can't run a competitive repair business that shouldn't give them special legal protections. A market would naturally punish such inefficient operations but Apple wants government handouts like customs interdictions, intellectual property, anti-circumvention laws, etc. so they can continue to upsell average citizens who lack the information to make better choices. Note that upsells don't reflect on the P&L of the repair silo.
Module-level repair, as opposed to component-level repair, has been a "thing" since the early days of color TVs. When things get above a very-minimal level of complexity, it simply isn't in anyone's best interest to have a random-skill-level technician spend hours and hours finding an IC with one bad gate or Op-Amp section, or an invisibly-cracked resistor. It just isn't.
Does this sometimes, even often, result in replacing a $400 logic board when the real problem is a bad solder connection underneath a 240-
Re: (Score:2)
Module-level repair, as opposed to component-level repair, has been a "thing" since the early days of color TVs. When things get above a very-minimal level of complexity, it simply isn't in anyone's best interest to have a random-skill-level technician spend hours and hours finding an IC with one bad gate or Op-Amp section, or an invisibly-cracked resistor. It just isn't.
Does this sometimes, even often, result in replacing a $400 logic board when the real problem is a bad solder connection underneath a 240-pad BGA IC, or a cracked PCB trace (on an inner-layer!) that could be fixed with a jumper-wire? Sure. But the alternative is $400 of labor costs (all-too-easy to accrue at today's $75-99/hr electronic repair-bench rates).
Or have a cracked PCB trace that is intermittent and only fails when the device is very warm so you end up replacing a component that's consistent with the symptoms thinking you've fixed it only for the customer to return when the device gets warm enough to fail again. And then you're on the hook for the rest of the labor and parts needed to actually fix the issue because the customer already paid you to fix it.
Or replace a component that has a history of failing fairly often only to find out it's really a
Re: (Score:2)
Let's also not forget Apple stores with their Genius Bars are locates in shopping malls. They're (Apple nor the mall itself) not insured or in some cases zoned for their techs doing component-level repairs. They would also need to meet all sorts of OSHA requirements with respect to ventilation and chemical exposure and likely other factors.
Some rando doing shit in their garage on a YouTube video does not have the same issues with liability or regulations as a commercial entity in a space zoned for consumer
Re: (Score:2)
LOL ok now we know your certifiable. Lou Rossman is more honest and trust worth than apple has ever been. Talk about being a liar and disingenuous, You Sir take first prize in both categories.
Sorry, wrong.
https://www.reddit.com/r/apple... [reddit.com]
https://appleinsider.com/artic... [appleinsider.com]
Build-Your-Own Smartphone (Score:2)
It would be like anything else: certain hardware features/specifications must be met in order to run certain OSes or use certain cellular networks,but otherwise, let me build my own phone, install an OS, get the drivers and updates myself, and then buy the appropriate SIM from a vendor.
While this is lik
Re: (Score:2)
While this is likely very possible (technically), I'm guessing the reason why it isn't happening is because of vendor lock-in with handsets and the FCC needing to "regulate" every handset for interference issues.
Plus, you'd end up with a smartphone that looked like "See, I fixed it!"
Good luck as a hobbyist getting any documentation on that Snapdragon SoC, BTW.
Nevermind Apple (or Samsung, LG, "Hawaii", etc.), the "proprietary" in devices such as cellphones starts at a far lower level, even on supposedly more "Open" platforms such as Android.
Bottom line, Linux and F/OSS doesn't cure everything. And wishing won't make it so.
Re: (Score:2)
The closest to this is the Librem smartphone which seems to be shipping. It uses a SoC that isn't a throwaway junker, but something designed for industrial applications with decades of support. This is going to be my next phone, most likely, just because you own your device, and your data is running on a different CPU than the closed source stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
The closest to this is the Librem smartphone which seems to be shipping.
Are they actually shipping to customers yet, or are they still only in the hands of employees?
High-quality long-lasting devices bankrupt corps (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ever notice that companies that build solid, long-lasting, high-quality things that rarely if ever need to be replaced usually don't stay in business long?
Yes, that's because the law doesn't prohibit the sale of hastily constructed trash that harms everyone through wasteful practices that have real environmental impact. It leaves manufacturers free to race to the bottom, and there's nothing good down there.
Take the California approach (Score:3)
Everything not repairable gets a label.
"This device is NOT consumer repairable, and is considered to be single-battery use."
Re: (Score:3)
I think they should spell it out. I bought a desk lamp on Amazon last week and when I got it I realized you cannot replace the bulb.
There was NOTHING to indicate that the bulb was not replaceable.
50,000 hours should be enough for anyone. Not really, that's only 5.7 years, but it's probably good enough for me. I only use it a few hours a day, but with their emphasis on how little electricity it uses I'm sure some people will just leave it on all the time.
I actually suspect the 2-button interface will go ba