"Right to Repair"

Am 03.08.21 um 21:49 schrieb Don Y:

HP came quite close to that for a steel axle with some rubber on it after the fusing station of my HP LJ6-MP.

Gerhard, now Kyocera customer.

Yep. This roller?

About $20 plus tax.

There's still a large aftermarket demand for replacement HP printer parts, which was filled by offshore vendors. HP does want to service this market because it detracts from the sale of new replacement printers. So, they set parts prices high, only sell expensive sub-assemblies, make the online parts store an ordeal process:

and maintain zero inventory parts that fail. Here's the most popular parts ordered online: A common 6ft AC power cord is only $30.37 with zero in stock. Nice.

Users seem to be following the guidance provided by Apple, Microsoft, and other computer vendors, to replace everything every 5 years or earlier. When it's easier and cheaper to buy a new computah, than to fix the hardware and software on the old computer, such things are possible. Circuit designers are helping by designing products that blow up or fall apart after about 5 years. Anything that lasts longer is considered waste and is "cost reduced" in the next revision. Fortunately, the printer manufacturers haven't discovered this source of revenue enhancement. I routinely see printers that have been running for 10 or more years.

Despite my being officially retired, I prefer fixing Brother printers. However, I still work on HP printers because they tend to be profitable. If I buy refurbished Brother printers, I can get three Brother printers for the retail cost of one HP printer.

Note: I only do laser printers.

I find "right to repair" rather amusing. Why do I need the right to fix something that shouldn't break in the first place? Shouldn't the effort be made to extend the life of a product by designing products that last longer? Maybe we should establish a Ministry of Reliability and fine vendors who sell products that self destruct far too early?

I've found a good strategy to be "pulling" (likely) useful parts off of discarded devices. Actually trying to keep the entire device (as a spare) eats up a lot of space. But, pulling things like friction rollers (think paper feed) takes damn little space in a drawer and can pay big rewards!

If the market is going to be chasing the latest version of XXX OS, then what value to making a machine that will run longer than major release updates?

We see THOUSANDS of discarded PCs (corporate donors) annually. Absolutely nothing wrong with them! Fully intact (we have to ensure any identifying information is scrubbed from them -- not just disks but BIOSes, inventory control tags, "stickers", etc.)

Lasers and phasers. But inkjets seem to shit the bed pretty early. I've rescued several (wide format) and found that I couldn't generate enough usage for them to keep them from drying out. So, back into the tip they go!

I've even tossed my phasers (and all of that delightfully expensive ink!) and higher speed lasers -- in favor of the slower, low temperature toner varieties (LJ5 & 6). Of course, having rescued a dozen NIB HP toner cartridges went a LONG way towards that decision! :> :>

Why shouldn't it? What other things "shouldn't" break? By and large, the failures that I encounter are power-supply related. (e.g., I have six identical workstations -- and 3 spare power supplies, "just in case") I can't count the number of LCD monitors that I've had to service because of bad caps or bad FETs (fine; more free toys for me!)

We should put a "deposit" on things that will become eWaste. At the very least, it would encourage folks to dispose of them properly. (we process 3500 pounds of "computers and ilk" *daily*. Six days a week. 50 weeks per year.

A better goal would be to convince users (consumers) that they don't NEED the stuff that is being offered in the "latest version" (of whatever).

My Windows apps run under W7 -- because they don't NEED anything that W8+ have to offer! (and think of all the time I save NOT installing OS updates!)

The (NetBSD) machine on which I do most of my software development gets updated every few years. If I've been diligent with my coding style, there are no consequences to my work -- no worrying about whether some new version of a tool will require me to rework *my* stuff!

Y did Don write:

=====================

** Exatly like all his crazy posts.

** Drivel. ** Nonsense.

• It will not say that. Way too arbitrary.

** That is why it will not say that.

** Factory repairs are done quite differently to how others do it.

And when the factory is in China - what then ?

** Simply to supply what outsiders say they must have to carry out repairs and cannot get elsewhere. NO dubious excuses allowed. ** A rule against excessive pricing ? .

The "Right to Repair" is exactly there to break through this line of thinking. No "we publish nothing because we want to protect our IP", but the obligation to publish enough information to allow others to understand the product well enough to do repairs. And, the obligation to make parts available for that, not necessarily from the manufacturer itself but at least not blocking their availability from other sources.

So, once it has been determined that LDO failure at U36 is a common failure, either make that LDO available or not block its availability at the wellknown electronics parts sellers.

Your own repair policy has nothing to do with that. And you can continue to do it that way. When your policy is: "whatever defect our equipment has, we only swap it for a new and functioning device either within warranty or at a fixed fee" then that is OK. But when others want to repair it at component level, that should be their right to do and you should not block it.

When this feels like "interfering with my way of doing business" then get used to that. This already is the case in many places around the world, e.g. Europe. When you want to do business, you are often not free to do it in the way you like best, but you have to adopt to what legislators force you to do. Or do no business.

Replace vs repair may be cheaper for the manufacturer AND the customer, things being as they are.

Repairing seems to serve the purpose of extending the life of products that the mfr prefers not to support, because there's no profit in it.

Serviceability of a product is a point-of-sale feature, that either raises or lowers a products value. It's a much bigger issue at re-sale, which is not a mainstream issue with the well-heeled individual or the short-term corporation.

I'd love to see legislated requirements for serviceability, but I think the closest you'll ever get to that is waste material controls.

Paperwork for carrying out such regulation is substantial, but can be used as a defacto preferential trade barrier, much as safety, emc and health restrictions already do.

RL

The only Microsoft program I run is the Office program. I had to upgrade my computer system to Win 10 from XP just because Turbo Tax and some Google Chrome web sites quit being suported.

I just do not see what kind of 'features' that TT would need from Win 10 or Win 7/8 .

Win 10 is always 'breaking' programs almost every time they upgrade.

Some of my XP programs I run will not run under Win 10 because of the way they treat the sounds.

Depending on the device it may be cheaper to replace. Much of the cost can be the designing and setting up the equipment to produce a product.

Back to the Comodore computer where for about $ 80 they would repair any problem . The circuit board that cost $ 50 was removed and a new one installed in the case. It would probably cost less to do it that way than to trouble shoot the board.

Yes, but that won't be what any legislation will address!

And, for some "high margin" products, replace can be costly (these folks who buy a new iPhone every release cycle...)

And that's the hook I can see legislation addressing: ensuring a supply of replacement parts long after the product has been retired.

But, that is predicated on either the manufacturer committing (or being bound) to making them available *or* others being able to make "work-alikes". What do you do if the CPU in your iPhone dies? Can you reflash a new one?

And, there are other, less obvious -- but related -- issues. E.g., if I buy a smart TV (or any other appliance), how long will the manufacturer be obligated to ensure its continued functionality? If, for example, the manufacturer provides a (network) service for his devices and then decides to discontinue that VERSION of the service, leaving those older devices effectively useless. (should he be required to publish the details of the service so some other provider can pick up the market he has abandoned?)

I suspect few people think about how they will get a product serviced that they are JUST NOW buying. It's only later, when something is broken, that they will discover the realities of that problem.

I think the "e-deposit" is coming. There's just WAY too much ewaste (which, technically, is HAZARDOUS waste)

I think there would be just too many ways to "game" any sort of "mandatory (or third-party) support" provisions. Is the gummit going to set the prices for spares?

It will either be "make available everything that your authorized agents have available to them (likely at whatever prices you CHARGE those agents -- which may be prohibitively high because they are enrolled in a "kick-back" program whereby they are credited for every repair, etc. ... something that a DIYer would not have accessible.

Any language would likely mandate "fair" or "reasonable" pricing. And, how do you legislate those numbers? A manufacturer can just set up a separate profit center called "aftermarket support". Buy a building. Staff it. Have its own accountants, etc. and *burden* the price of each spare part sold with their actual, DOCUMENTED costs of overhead. Plus, a "reasonable" profit ("You can't begrudge me a profit!")

And, if spares are likely a small portion of sales, they can further burden that firm by disallowing it to leverage THEIR buying power:

"We sell 100 million widgets annually and, as a result, get a terrific deal on the components that are used in it. You, OTOH, will have to negotiate your own pricing for the < 1% of that number that YOU will likely sell. AND, YOU WILL HAVE TO KEEP IT IN STOCK FOR n YEARS whereas we can run *our* inventory to *zero*!"

So, as my initial comment said, largely "smoke".

[A way it may have teeth is to forbid things like patenting a particular component that is essential to your product's operation and, as a result, controlling its supply. Do you modify existing patent law to disallow such claims?]

On Wed, 4 Aug 2021 10:29:43 -0700, Don Y snipped-for-privacy@foo.invalid wrote: <snip>

It's the other way around in a properly organized trade barrier. You move the target faster than foreign industry can anticipate, while making sure local mfrs are up to date and informed on upcoming changes.

With any luck, the smaller market can be too troublesome for the bigger vendors to bother with and generate considerable service bucks selling expertise, test and design/fab capacity to those that have no alternative.

Germany (now EEC), California . . .

RL

This is where legislators have to get people with tech know-how involved, for once. Example:

I lost two Dell PCs in short order and one of them was a pricey i7-based power machine. Motherboard failure. Well, with the i7 it could also be a CPU failure but because no schematics are published it's not possible to tell. Short of shelling out lots of money to try a new CPU and possibly discovering that this was a waste of money.

So, if PC manufacturers just published the schematics many computers could be kept out of landfills. Motherboards usually become unobtainable as spare parts after a short number of years and besides, throwing away a whole motherboard just because a little IC or a diode on there has failed doesn't make ecological sense.

And no, this will not harm their sales, on the contrary. After these experiences I switched brands and replaced these computers with HP. If Dell had published schematics I could have repaired and then would have bought the next PC at Dell again.

Here is an example of the opposite: The 50's era large Braun kitchen mixer from my mom gave up. They furnished a complete service manual for it. I had to go to Cologne for another reason so figured I'd try to ask for the spare parts at the factory service place, fully expecting they'd shoo me away. On the contrary, the employee went back to a large area with bins, handed me the parts and wanted 1 Deutschmark and 55 Pfennigs. Huh? "Sir, this must be a misprint, that is way too low" ... "No, this was the original price when we still built these and we honor that". I told him they had just won a new loyal customer and after our marriage we bought several kitchen devices from Braun.

I would not expect any company to divulge trade secrets such as the contents of an FPGA. However, I do expect release of schematics like was standard practice in the 60's and 70's where, consequently, I was able to repair a lot of TV sets as a kid. There is no secret in schematics since any competitor could easily reverse engineer boards to derive the schematics.

They need to consult and employ experts in the matter -> engineers.

Easy. Make that reportable and when it festers some goons would be sent out to that company for a little audit.

It has to be reasonable though. For example, an ASIC with 100 pins or more or a BGA may not be considered serviceable by ordinary repair personnel. This is all more about common sense stuff. Such as when the switch of a old vaccum fries. That happened to us earlier this year. Could not get the spare, had to buy a whole new vacuum.

I think this is one of the few laws that makes sense if implemented reasonably and without undue burned on manufacturers. Such as "Identify the five most common easy to fix failures on your product and make those parts available at reasonable cost". Switches, motor brushes, cables, gaskets, that sort of thing. For electronics it's schematics, parts can generally be bought at Digikey. I don't want a spare for a huge FPGA to be avaliable for three decades, I just want to be able to have a "map" that allows me to find that D17 is bad.

We just give our customers repair parts and schematics, if they want to fix something themselves. That seems to make them happy.

Excellent! That's usually all people ask for. So if such a law ever comes into effect you guys should already be well prepared. Like at an airport where a TSA officer held up my lunch package "Listen up folks, THIS is how it's done!"

Am 04.08.21 um 02:55 schrieb Jeff Liebermann:

No, it was simpler. Just a 6mm steel rod with some rubber on it. The rubber proved not to be temperature resistant. I fixed it some for some time with 3 layers of thermo shrink hose.

Gerhard

Am 05.08.21 um 00:07 schrieb Gerhard Hoffmann:

Now that I think about it you could not get the rod without an entire fusing station.

John Larkin wrote: ================

** I knew someone who worked for one of Australia's commercial TV networks. They game played like this.

1. Figure out what new piece of equipment is needed.

1. Place a firm order and wait for delivery.

2. Make it a condition of purchase that full schematics plus a life time supply of essential spares be provided with the item.

1. Non payment until 3 is complied with.

..... Phil

legg bullshitted: =============

** Meaningless drivel.

** Ya don't say......

** Nonsense, customers have no way of knowing that.

**That is what R to R is all about. ** Yawnnnnnn ...

.... Phil

That is unusual. I can understand the price of the parts going up. What pisses me is that as an ordnary person I can not go to some parts places and ask for a part. They only sell to certified repair man or companies. About 40 years ago I went with a man to a Mercury Boat motor place to pick up something. A man was there needing a small part but they would not sell him on. We bought the part and I think my friend even added a markup to the price and sold it to him for what is the socalled 'list price'.

torsdag den 5. august 2021 kl. 00.25.01 UTC+2 skrev snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com:

that depends on who you ask, some will say it is perfectly fine for something to not be serviceable because it was cheaper to use glue rather than screws. But it is not ok to, say, ban selling an IC to anyone but Apple, so noone but Apple can fix boards where that IC is broken. Or disable a device that had parts replaced unless the new parts gets blessed by tools only available to authorized repair