Right to Repair

( replacing the OVER SNIP )

** Blatant LIE.

** Now you are a time bandit and a lying f****it.

** Look up the word " rare " - f****it. ** Genius...

** Blatant f****ng LIE !!!

** So you are totally blind as well now. ** Nonsense. Read my first post to YOU again and again. ** One is a business, the other not. The former know how to do repairs correctly and safely - often better than fake " authorized" people. DIY types are often a menace. Just how f****ng DUMB are you ? =========================== ** Look in the mirror - pal. See a GREAT BIG LIAR .

....... Phil

What is stopping it?

I believe there are far more real logistical things preventing anyone from being hungry than there are preventing people from having access to parts / documentation / tools.

Why limit the hunger question to just children?

Yes.

Yes.

I believe you used the wrong part (new design) for your friend's old laptop.

If you had access to the proper part (old design) you would have not needed to choose between modifying the case or leave a wire hanging out.

I also chose to modify the case when I last ran into this problem. But I chose to buy a part from the local electronics store vs deal with the manufacturer.

I trust that we both know that most organizations that fall into the scope of this discussion already have the partitioning that you're talking about.

What part about parts / documentation / tools are conflating?

That does not preclude the friends that work in different departments from talking.

If the technician can't do her job based on the documentation and needs clarification, well, that's an indication that the company needs better documentation.

I trust that we both know that the parts / documentation / tools are restricted for outsiders and that's a much larger problem than friends talking over lunch.

Then they don't have to be.

I trust that we both know that "user manuals" are a crock when it comes to repairing things. There are almost always other manuals / documents that that are far better for repairs.

I'm well aware that it's a ploy for the company to not write better documentation and / or gimmick to drive service to the manufacturer.

That's the way that it is today, has been for a long time, and likely will be for the foreseeable future.

At least from the manufacturer. There are often other sources for many, but not all, parts.

Sure.

$ComputerVendor has engineers that design the computer and technicians that service the computer. They are two very distinct departments / individuals / pay structures / etc. They may or may not be under the same roof, possibly depending on the size of the manufacturer.

See the comment above about the already established partitions.

Yes.

No.

See my previous comments around "volume discounts".

My entire premise has been that parts / documentation / tools are available. Their availability is effectively independent of the price assigned.

Then the authorized technician, the 3rd party technician, and the DIYer are all subject to the same change.

I fail to see any difference between you (the DIYer), a 3rd party technician, or a 1st party authorized technician. Part unavailability is equal.

That sounds like a huge core charge to me. But I understand the motivation behind it.

Yes, I've encountered a handful of bad CPUs.

Probably.

That's a chance you take any time you depend on an external supplier.

It cost them more than the sheet of paper. it cost them closer to $4,999 to refuse to sell it. As in lost profit.

I don't know the MSRP of an iPhone 12 as a unit. But I'm guessing around $1k. (I've seen higher and lower over the years. It's convenient.) So a large, exposed part of the overall unit costing (roughly) a quarter of the price doesn't seem that bad. Despite personally disliking it.

Shady business practices.

That's your choice.

Not everyone makes the same choice.

That's probably where I'd end up too.

Sounds like a learning opportunity via trial and error.

It sounds like the only value in the wrong product's IP is what to not do.

I question the veracity of that statement.

Though perhaps it's related to sub-units. You can use 1/3 of an egg, but storing the other 2/3 is problematic and only lasts for a short while. Thus the entire egg is effectively consumed.

That's one opinion.

Purchased, yes. Had something serviced by a company out of China that doesn't have a point of presence in the U.S.A., no.

The things that I'm buying aren't subject to needing service.

Not at all.

So laugh away.

There's things genuinely breaking and then there's planned obsolescence. The latter is a bad thing in my opinion.

I'm okay with that.

About 10 seconds after they see the documentation.

No.

No.

Usually there are warning lights that behave in a certain way when there is imminent danger of damage. And there is usually documentation in the native language that says "If you see this, do this, and go to the dealership."

When you do more research, have a friend of a friend translate the documentation /long/ /after/ you have shut the car off.

No, they aren't examples of how they can skirt legislation.

You've not yet said anything that I think runs afoul of what I'm advocating.

I'd have to go back and check things, but I believe that Western Electric was the manufacturing division of AT&T. Or that's how they started before spinning out on their own and renaming.

W.E. was always under the AT&T umbrella.

The practicality of doing the repair is independent of having the parts / documentation / tools to do so.

That's what I call a "manufacturing defect". Something which I expect that even authorized technicians don't have access to data.

Yes.

I don't like the price, but that is in the spirit of what I've been saying; parts / documentation / tool. Actually, what you're offering is /better/ than what I've been saying.

Sure. Why not?

Yes, I believe there are larger privacy concerns that you have not spoken to. PII and profiling come to mind. Combined with security breaches and the likes.

That falls nicely into the privacy concerns.

I don't know.

Try it and find out.

Or continue to wonder.

That seems like a reasonable choice.

But it /is/ a choice that you have made.

As the owner (not leased / rented / etc) I believe you do have the right to do so.

You should also have the parts / documentation / tools that are available as a basis for your starting point.

I consider that to be a real possibility, if not actually somewhat likely.

Yep.

Though I'd suggest avoiding their forums.

Without any form of license or N.D.A. I don't see any grounds they have for stopping you.

Yes.

That is a possibility.

I doubt that you would consider it a success and share it wildly. I suspect that even fewer people would make the same change.

Yes.

Yep. I've dealt with similar.

I'm not going to start on another rant.

TL;DR: I suspect we agree about these things.

Both not enough in some ways, and too much in other ways.

That /may/ stand up to some scrutiny. But I suspect it would fall over with deep enough scrutiny and discovery.

I doubt that any legislator does. That's what professionals and industry experts on the payroll are for.

It doesn't help me any more than complaining after I run out of gas / battery charge.

Unknown.

I would expect nothing less.

As well you should.

Yes.

My circle of friends has a disproportionate number of people that are aware of this issue.

I know what you mean.

I'm not sure where changing the terms of the sale came into play.

The price of any /new/ or /additional/ items may be higher. But I've already paid for the item outright and will continue using it as is per the previously agreed contract.

I'd do well to differentiate the different makes myself. But from what friends in the business tell me, there are distinct advantages of some brands over other brands. Many of which are related to capabilities related to automation and / or integration / product line compatibility.

[Most elided as we're just repeating the same arguments. As *c> >> Yeah, that's an admirable goal. But, I don't think it's gonna happen in a

Monied interests on the other side of the issue.

The part -- the only one available from the manufacturer -- isn't a COTS connector. Rather, it has a bracket built-into its design so it can be fastened to a boss in the case with a regular *screw*.

Possibly *larger* organizations. But, I've seen many smaller ones (< $100M) that don't have established "service personnel". Often, a technician who is responsible for *building* a device will end up being sent off to

*service* a device. The bean counters may treat his wages/expenses differently but his role in the organization isn't one of "service".

Please locate a service manual for my permobil color joystick module ($1200). Or, Nest thermostat/camera (~$250). Or, any of my TVs.

Do we exempt products that cost less than ~$2000 from any such legislation?

Now *you* are being too cynical! Documentation is expensive. People don't produce it unless they *have* to. That's at all levels of the organization, not just "service".

How is that any different from buying from a vendor? How often is the firmware in your TV updated?

So, for a $100K tractor, $25K would be a "reasonable" repair cost? Why fret over a $600 sensor? Surely the loss of a day's *use* of a tractor would be more than that!

Shady is not illegal. Amazon tries to get me to pay for shipping on each purchase (not a prime member) -- despite qualifying for free shipping based on dollar amount.

And, lays out their pages so an unwary consumer will adopt the "Prime Trial" without realizing it.

Nothing illegal about any of this.

Of course they do! It's just the dollar amounts that vary.

I'm sure many folks would love to drive Lamborghinis. But, have resigned themselves to "living without". OTOH, have no problem forking out for a Mercedes when a Lexus is probably of comparable quality/prestige. They're willing to pay the premium in that case, instead of "living without".

But I don't know what those mistakes are (other than size of portion) without access to their Rx.

Rxs are typically far more "sensitive" to scaling than just that.

Try making *one* brownie. Even if you can scale down the ingredients, you're still stuck with actually *baking* it! Perhaps in a muffin pan? Ah, but then the sides are sloped, the brownie is round and there is too great a proportion of (hard/crunchy) "edges" to (soft/gooey) "center".

I could scale down the Rx for the biscotti that I make for SWMBO every week or two. So, instead of a "dash and a pinch" of salt, I should use a "pinch and a smidgen"?

If I resort to a single egg in a (scaled) Rx, then the ACTUAL size (volume) of that egg becomes a source of variability in the resulting product. (As Spehro would say, "There's no such thing as a 'Large Egg'")

The "local vendor" makes biscuits that are roughly the same volume as my index finger. In addition to being "single mouthfuls", they are also very hard/crunchy. The version I eat is considerably larger:

3 inches wide, 2 inches thick and ~7 inches long. As a result, the texture is completely different. It holds a lot more liquid when dunked in a glass of milk (I don't drink coffee). And, is much softer (melt in your mouth). [Imagine if Oreo cookies were the size of M&M's... how would that experience change?]

A 10 pound "box" (you know the sort of yellow/orange boxes that bakeries typically use) might hold 15 biscuits. So, 5 pounds would give me ~7. Maybe three breakfasts to make up my mind as to how I need to tweek the Rx for the next iteration.

I don't think there is an active *planning* of obsolescence in most products. In fact, I think many product lines have gone to great lengths to "protect the customer's investment".

VCRs evolved from Stereo to HiFi to SVHS -- over the course of ~20 years! Your "early model" could still play tapes produced 10 or more years later, albeit without the features that were targeted to newer models.

Laser video discs -- and then DVDs -- replaced VCRs when it became apparent that PLAYING was more important to most users than RECORDING. And, the change in format came with improvements in video quality (beyond SVHS).

The same sort of evolution has occurred with audio. Each new technology offers advantages over the predecessors (I'd really hate trying to spin vinyl in an automobile! And, it's so much more convenient to have my music catalog available on a variety of "players" that are appropriate for different usage requirements.

[The fact that sheeple are willing to RENT music is a problem in the consumer's head, not the vendor's!]

You haven't put into legal terms what the requirements to be imposed on vendors will be. If you claim, "Anything that a tech has access to should be accessible to EVERYONE", then I've outlined ways that I can still screw you without running afoul of that language: "We treat FRUs as disposable. When they are returned to the factory, we sell them to a recycler for SCRAP VALUE -- and gladly sell you a brand new unit at (inflated) price!"

Now, do you want legislation to set price controls on vendors? Do I get to lobby for price controls on what (subsidized!) farmers can charge for food? Maybe appoint a commission to review pricing every 6 months and tell the farmers what they'll be able to charge in the upcoming 6 month period?

Yay! Hooray for the consumer! We'll get a "planned economy" after all! (we've seen how well THOSE work)

Increasingly, products carry license clauses. So, violating them (e.g., by reverse engineering) can't put the genie back in the bottle... but, it can put the guy who let it out into jail ("We have incurred damages amounting to $X as a result of Defendant's violation of our license agreement -- and seek damages equal to that amount from Defendant.")

I rely on these sorts of things to safeguard my designs from illegal copying. A user bitten by this practice can choose to keep silent about it. But, that just means other users will eventually be bitten by it, as well.

OTOH, if he shares his experience, it keeps those users from wasting their efforts "bricking" their devices (or, purchasing counterfeits).

If pushed, they will "tinker" with the law. Vendors will respond with changes in their policies -- which may be in favor of customers or against. And, having acted, the pols will consider the matter "addressed". I.e., if you don't like the solution, tough.

Again, are you going to legislate what FRUs a vendor must make available?

"Gee, I wasn't planning on having to separate X from Y. If I *must* be able to do so -- to lower the repair cost to JUST that of X *or* Y -- then I'll have to add some sort of connector/linkage to the fabrication. So, X' + Y' now costs more than (X + Y) used to. Sorry, but the law REQUIRED me to make those assemblies less expensive..."

They are called lobbyists. They are not unbiased.

There are simply too many sheeple in the mix. I vigorously preach to my friends and neighbors about recycling, repair, reuse, (repurpose), etc. But, it's far easier for them to simply "discard and repurchase".

I've tried appealing to them on the impact to their offspring/grandkids... <shrug> People are lazy and look for expedients.

In the past, I would personally try to take up some of this slack -- diverting their discards, repairing and then redistributing to someone else in need. But, this is like mowing the lawn -- when there's a guy two steps in front of you laying down fertilizer! I.e., not something I'd want to make a career of doing (f*ck 'em... let their grandkids gripe about the excesses of their grandparents!)

But, you want to be able to change the terms of access to repair materials AFTER you made the purchase! How about you can get those materials for your NEXT purchase, but not for the purchase you already made? Oh, and, by the way, we're changing the design of the product so anything you learn from those new materials won't be applicable to your old product (which we sold to you on the assumption that we had an established repair policy in place).

A vendor offering a superior product sets his terms in his favor -- to the extent that the market will bear. Folks offering inferior products have to sweeten the pie to entice customers to accept their "lesser" product.