Also it's just product labeling, it doesn't force anyone to design products you can repair

Yes, that won't stop shady practices from Apple and other companies . Each year they intentionally implement new roadblocks to repair their devices and that would be hard to prove in court.

but I'm concerned planned obsolescence will become a thing to circumvent this kind of legislation

Planned obsolescence is too hard to implement outside of strictly controlled ecosystems.

The Serpent Rider wrote on 2020-11-30, 12:32:

Planned obsolescence is too hard to implement outside of strictly controlled ecosystems.

Not really. Since alot of products are getting more and more "app" integrated. For instance take boardgames, many of them now requires an app. A company could have a strategy saying that products are only supported 6 months after going out of print, meaning app service will be taken down and thus rendering the board game useless unless fans/3rd party take over.

Facebook could do the same to Oculus Rift 2 by changing the account login after new products are on the marked and claiming it's for "security reasons". Bam, all Rift 2 headsets now cannot be used.

Not really. Since alot of products are getting more and more "app" integrated. For instance take boardgames, many of them now requires an app. A company could have a strategy saying that products are only supported 6 months after going out of print, meaning app service will be taken down and thus rendering the board game useless unless fans/3rd party take over.

Facebook could do the same to Oculus Rift 2 by changing the account login after new products are on the marked and claiming it's for "security reasons". Bam, all Rift 2 headsets now cannot be used.

AFAIK that's the showcases for right to repair, i.e. you can "hack"or jailbreak your devices to restore original functionality.
You're also not obliged to follow any EULA that can contradict the law or your rightful ownership.

vetz wrote on 2020-11-30, 12:41:

The Serpent Rider wrote on 2020-11-30, 12:32:

Planned obsolescence is too hard to implement outside of strictly controlled ecosystems.

Not really. Since alot of products are getting more and more "app" integrated. For instance take boardgames, many of them now requires an app. A company could have a strategy saying that products are only supported 6 months after going out of print, meaning app service will be taken down and thus rendering the board game useless unless fans/3rd party take over.

Facebook could do the same to Oculus Rift 2 by changing the account login after new products are on the marked and claiming it's for "security reasons". Bam, all Rift 2 headsets now cannot be used.

Probably that kind of behaviour will end up before the European Court of Justice, and based on previous judgements it will likely end badly for the perpetrator (read: very big fine, if necessary several times until they change their ways).

AWESOME!!!

From the first glance, this looks like an amazing idea. But being a citizen of Germany, I'm pretty sure it won't do a lot of good.
The EU wanted to make sure we had the USB standard for chargers, too - but in the end, certain companies like Apple just provided a USB adapter for their own connectors and got away with it.

I'm pretty sure the same thing will happen again, just like Louis Rossmann predicts it.
If the manufacturers need to provide technical manuals (because it's the law) they will produce some b*s* manuals on how to loosen the screws instead.

And if they're ordered to provide replacement parts for the customers, they will make them so expensive that people would still rather buy a new device instead.
"Here's our replacement part. CPU, RAM and everything else is soldered onto the motherboard - that'll cost 800 bucks."

Companies will always find a way to bend you over and make a profit. Since most people don't care, it won't change.

I think it's a good first step, but it's nowhere near enough. From the linked article, it looks like this only assigns repairability scores. Unless these scores significantly impact consumer buying decisions, and unless better options exist, I can't see this having too much of an impact. As it stands, whether Mr. X buys an iPhone or Galaxy S<something>, the repairability, usable lifespan and environmental impact of its manufacture and use are not significantly different. For this to work, there has to be some manufacturer that genuinely cares enough to make a better product. The fact remains that these corporate behemoths understand only one language: money. Unless it impacts profits, shareholder satisfaction or sales, they won't change their ways.

The way I see it, this needs to be a first step in a series of aggressive measures. In the same way that a device needs to be evaluated for regulatory and safety approvals, there needs to be a repairability and environmental impact assessment. Things such as availability and cost-effectiveness of repair parts and tools, complexity of repair procedures, toxicity of materials used, company history of using recycled materials in production and practical product lifespan, based on similar models from the same company, need to be factored into the evaluation. Then, an import levy (read "additional tax") needs to be assessed against the products if they fail to meet established repairability, environmental or longevity standards. With salaries relatively stagnant, there is only so much of the additional fees that can practically be passed on to the consumer; then it will start eating into company margins and profits, and shareholders will not be so happy. Then we'll start to see the changes that companies are unwilling to make now.

Apple devices have built in security and are part of the Applepay eco-system.
They dont want un-authorized people messing with there hardware.
Also Apple is a brand name that wants quality control over there products.

If you dont like the way Apple builds its devices then buy a PC.
Or $6000 Mac Pro.

I can see Apples argument that there devices are like a credit card reader at the local store and they dont want people to tamper with it.
Its about security on the Apple devices.

Intel486dx33 wrote on 2020-11-30, 22:32:

Apple devices have built in security and are part of the Applepay eco-system. They dont want un-authorized people messing with t […]
Show full quote

Apple devices have built in security and are part of the Applepay eco-system.
They dont want un-authorized people messing with there hardware.
Also Apple is a brand name that wants quality control over there products.

If you dont like the way Apple builds its devices then buy a PC.
Or $6000 Mac Pro.

I can see Apples argument that there devices are like a credit card reader at the local store and they dont want people to tamper with it.
Its about security on the Apple devices.

Lol!!

Sometimes you make people accept the idea of new rules.
Afterward you refine the legislation.
Many EU regulations express general principles that need to be expanded, maybe needing years to be effective as intended.

The EU has done many great things but it's not easy to have everyone comply at once.
And the Court of Justice is going to have some work here.

Intel486dx33 wrote on 2020-11-30, 22:32:

Apple devices have built in security and are part of the Applepay eco-system. They dont want un-authorized people messing with t […]
Show full quote

Apple devices have built in security and are part of the Applepay eco-system.
They dont want un-authorized people messing with there hardware.
Also Apple is a brand name that wants quality control over there products.

If you dont like the way Apple builds its devices then buy a PC.
Or $6000 Mac Pro.

I can see Apples argument that there devices are like a credit card reader at the local store and they dont want people to tamper with it.
Its about security on the Apple devices.

HAHAHAHA... and you spelled their "there" Also no apostrophe in don't. Apples is also plural instead of possessive. Its should have been "It's". You need to watch your punctuation.

Just because you are an Apple shill and probably have a shrine to Steve Jobs doesn't mean that Apple is the best thing that ever happened ever.

Intel486dx33 wrote on 2020-11-30, 22:32:

Apple devices have built in security and are part of the Applepay eco-system.
They dont want un-authorized people messing with there hardware.
Also Apple is a brand name that wants quality control over there products.

Of course, you don't actually believe what you wrote, but just for the sake of discussion, let's think about this for a second. First of all, the simple fact that it's an Apple product doesn't make it more secure than anybody else's. Security is an incredibly difficult area, and Apple makes mistakes, just like everybody else (see the reports about the T2 chip, for a recent example). The simple fact that I may replace a battery in an Apple-branded device will not make it any more or less secure than it was before the repair job, and other than having proprietary tools that Apple refuses to share (for now), their technicians are no more capable of doing the job than I or many others here.

Next, the second they accept my money and hand me the device and receipt indicating that I have paid for it in full, they cease to have any authority over said device; they designed it, but it is my hardware from that time forward. If they want to retain full control, they can keep it, and I will keep my money. Let's see how Mr. Cook convinces the board and shareholders that that is the right approach when their profits start to drop.

Intel486dx33 wrote on 2020-11-30, 22:32:

I can see Apples argument that there devices are like a credit card reader at the local store and they dont want people to tamper with it.
Its about security on the Apple devices.

Now this is utter nonsense. A credit card terminal is a regulated, secured device that, most often, is leased by payment processors to businesses, not sold (can they be purchased for legal business use in any areas?). Unless Apple wants to be subject to the same regulations, this is not the comparison to make. You can't install arbitrary, user-selected software on a credit card terminal or ATM, and everything has to get the proper regulatory approvals.

Part of the reason I am so supportive of stringent regulation of availability of repair parts and tools at reasonable prices is that Apple has been shown to be dishonest. In at least one case, hidden-camera footage that was later on the national news showed one of their store technicians telling a customer that his laptop had been exposed to liquid and it would cost thousands to repair. Of course, the decision this so-called technician wanted the customer to believe he had made himself is that it was better to buy a new machine. When they consulted with someone more reputable, it was found to be a problem with the flex cable for the display, as has been discussed in these forums previously. Total cost to repair: under $100. So was the technician a liar, incompetent or both?

When you have "technicians" that have sales targets to meet, the company makes the case for right to repair all by themselves. The only real questions are: "what is taking so long?!" and "why aren't more coutries adopting such laws?".

We wouldn't stand for such nonsense in other areas. Imagine having to go to a GM- or Volkswagen-approved re-filling station, because they were the only ones with the custom tool to open the fuel port. Then, they would fill the tank with their own proprietary fuel formulation, and update the vehicle's blockchain-based and cryptographically-signed service records to enable it to start again. Then, you get to pay for the privilege. This is what owning a vehicle Apple-style would look like, and most people wouldn't go anywhere near that. Why do we let Apple and company get away with it?

Meh. I’m against the Right to Repair. Nothing more to say since all I could’ve said was said in another thread. EU never gets a vote about technology right, since their parliament is *cough* full of couch tech experts *couch*

Bruninho wrote on 2020-12-01, 05:20:

Meh. I’m against the Right to Repair. Nothing more to say since all I could’ve said was said in another thread. EU never gets a vote about technology right, since their parliament is *cough* full of couch tech experts *couch*

There are a lot of us couch experts that a quite capable of fixing our own system. There are also so called IT "experts "that don't have a clue.

vetz wrote on 2020-11-30, 10:52:

I'm concerned planned obsolescence will become a thing to circumvent this kind of legislation. It's like trying to repair an Iphone 1, even if it can be repaired it will be hopelessly outdated in terms of software.

I think people will move on from phone to phone regardless of their condition just because they want new things. Planned obsolescence doesn't work as EU legislation requires things like phones, laptops etc. to work for a certain period of time AFTER manufacturers warranty has expired, so they are forced to repair products that break prematurely. Many stores offer extended warranties because of this automatically.

Couch?
as in sofa?

Caluser2000 wrote on 2020-12-01, 05:26:

Bruninho wrote on 2020-12-01, 05:20:

Meh. I’m against the Right to Repair. Nothing more to say since all I could’ve said was said in another thread. EU never gets a vote about technology right, since their parliament is *cough* full of couch tech experts *couch*

There are a lot of us couch experts that a quite capable of fixing our own system. There are also so called IT "experts "that don't have a clue.

Ok! Fine, it’s your choice, do it at your own risk. I actually (emphasis on actually) prefer to avoid the headache and let the authorized assistance fix it or go for a replacement. That would be different 20 years ago, but now I no longer have patience for these things. Also, I never had a malfunctioning brand new Mac.

Not every IT “expert” are qualified or has any sort of authorized/official qualification to repair a Mac, not even myself. So I don’t even try it when there is a chance it can be damaged in an attempt to do so.

I dont try to fix a car if I don’t know how, because I have spent an absurd amount of money to buy the car, and if I screw up the damage is bigger, and the price to fix too, so I only let qualified mechanics from Ford assistance to fix it for me. Works for me.

Right to Repair gives to these people the chance to screw up when they attempt to fix it by themselves. They shouldn’t. People with no clue on how to replace the battery of a 2013 MacBook Pro will lose the Mac if they attempt it without the proper equipment and procedures, which only Apple qualified technicians know how.

Now imagine if I gave to my web clients the right to repair the websites I made for them, and when they come back yelling at me that their fix did not work? I will just tell them “I told you so” and ask for much more money to fix it for them, than I did when I developed these sites for them. This is exactly what would happen with Apple and Right To Repair.

Bruninho wrote on 2020-12-01, 13:12:

Right to Repair gives to these people the chance to screw up when they attempt to fix it by themselves. They shouldn’t. People with no clue on how to replace the battery of a 2013 MacBook Pro will lose the Mac if they attempt it without the proper equipment and procedures, which only Apple qualified technicians know how.

Now imagine if I gave to my web clients the right to repair the websites I made for them, and when they come back yelling at me that their fix did not work? I will just tell them “I told you so” and ask for much more money to fix it for them, than I did when I developed these sites for them. This is exactly what would happen with Apple and Right To Repair.

I know how to repair cars and do alot of type of repairs. Shouldn't it be consumer choice if he/she wants to fix it themselves or let thirdparty do it? If you advocate only the manufacturer of the item (ie Apple) should be able to fix it, you basically have a monopoly situation. There are already laws and terms of condition to void responsibility if a repair goes wrong outside the manufacturers control, I don't see the problem. It should be consumer's choice to accept that risk or not.

vetz wrote on 2020-12-01, 13:54:

It should be consumer's choice to accept that risk or not.

Plot twist, it already is.

They attempt, they succeed, the game goes on as normal. But if they fail, it's not Apples fault the consumer failed to do so and also void the warranty in the process.

You can replace the battery of an iPhone on your own, sure, if you think you are an "IT expert", but whether you did it right or not following the correct procedure is another story. If you do it right, good. If you do it wrong, then don't come back moaning when it explodes on your hand, or while you are in a call, and want to sue Apple for that, when the culprit in fact is you - the one who attempted to fix the battery.

What if I wanted to repair the airbags of my car on my own? What if I crash and the airbag has any sort of malfunction? I cannot sue Ford for that. EDIT: Worse, the car insurance wouldn't pay me.

I understand Right To Repair, but people need to understand the risks involved and think twice about whether its worth to save some money fixing it by yourself or not and the risks in doing so. You're basically giving up on safer repairs or replacements under the company's warranty. With a smartphone, there are very dangerous risks involved, like explosion or fire. So just leave it to people trained and officially recognized as authorized technicians by the brand who made your phone.

You're fighting the wrong battle, you should fight for free or cheaper replacements/repairs as long as your computer/device/product/car (or whatever) is under warranty, not the "right to fix it by myself".