Right to Repair: Now and to come

We will supply our customers with everything we have, schematics and BOMs and PCB layouts and code, if they promise to not abuse it.

John Larkin Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center Lunatic Fringe Electronics

This:

suggests that you don't have to BURDEN your design to make it repairable by users (or depots for that matter). I.e., make the only "replacement part" be the unit itself (which spare parts can you purchase for your earbuds?)

IANAL, but the above looks like wrong attitude. Of course, any rights that are given to customers should be also given to authorised service centers. But if now you do no repairs in service centers, but do them in the factory, than clearly you should help which similar repairs by custormers. If your design is completely unrepairable, then this may free you from obligations. But is such case the question is why it is unrepairable? Was there valid reason to make it unrepairable? Clearly "I do not want unauthrised people mess with my design" is not a valid reason. Similarly "repair is not viable economically so we will not support it". And even if _you_ consider your unit to be unrepairable you may still be obliged to provide spare parts or other support to parties capable of repairing your device.

Concerning future, I can imagine system simiar to current carbon credits, where you pay for any unrepairable part of your design. That may be coupled with strict repairability mandate for elements considerd part of infrastructure.

To make things repairable, you must be able to disassemble them into meaningful parts/subassemblies. That requires fasteners, connectors and other things that aren't strictly necessary in the design.

My first product had a 6x10" "CPU board" -- CPU, decoding logic, ROM, RAM, connectors to I/O. I could patch the UVEPROMs soas not to have to replace them. Or, replace them with OTPs. Ditto the RAM, CPU, decoding logic, etc.

Nowadays, all of that (except the I/O connector -- which would now be the pins on a device!) would be an SoC. Is that more repairable or less? Clearly, if the FLASH in the SoC craps out, the entire "CPU board" is scrap.

But, the SoC would be smaller and likely less expensive -- as it has shed all of the extra "matter" that was present in the "CPU board"

I'm publishing the source code. The goal is for others to mimic and *improve* the design. But, not by making it *more* expensive to produce! Or, physically larger than necessary.

What do you think the policy is on repairing a set of $35 earbuds? Do they even want the "defective" units returned (warranty)??

That is the nature of the question. What LEGALLY are the REALISTIC obligations? If the factory policy is to discard defective product ("no replaceable parts inside"), then can legislation REALISTICALLY require the manufacturer to support repair by end users? Should the manufacturer have to provide proprietary replacement parts "at cost" (?) to folks wanting to do this? And, shipped by the fastest/cheapest means (lest the user be inconvenienced)?

(One can always choose not to sell into markets that impose criteria that conflict with your approach!)

Having first-hand experience with recycling "in the wild", a huge chunk of every (electronic) product is recycled by grinding it up and chemically extracting the precious metals.

The low hanging fruit are things like copper and aluminum heatsinks, the aluminum frames of disk drives, lead from VRLA batteries, etc. Gold from edge connectors or CPU pins. Steel/tin are worthless (1p/pound).

So, if you *add* materials to a design to make it serviceable, you are just increasing the amount of non-recyclable material that taints the product when it *is*, eventually, "retired".

If SoC dies, then it is scrap. But unless you are a chip manufacturer your product is likely to contain more than just a chip.

I do not think anybody would protest integrating several chips into one.

I do not know what is current policy. But clearly there is some pressure to allow long usage. Which could be attained by lowering defect rate and in general by maing it more durable. But that is hard to codify as a law.

Yes. The start point was manufacturers policy that people deemed to be unreasonable.

IIUC that is in proposals.

Shipping is in a sense a trivial matter, there is well developed delivery system and I do not think law would require you to better than available means. OTOH if you try obstruction there it would be visible and easy to catch.

I can imagine provision that repair centers could order replacement parts in advance and possibly in quantity bigger than 1.

Such recycling clearly discards most of utility that thing had before. If you look at publicised cases you will see electronics that is part of expensive products that customers expected to function for long time. In particular as long as electronics works there is no need to replace it, while failure creates need to repair or replace it. If you add material to make it more repairable, then likely effect is longer useful life, so less waste overall. There are now voices which demand longer useful life from ordinary "consumer" products. It is not clear how far this will go, opponents of regulations in this direction are quite strong. One possiblity is to have long warranty period possibly coupled with mandatory insurance to cover cost of repairs in case of manufactur default.

That is increasingly becoming the case. Full customs are now pretty easy to create without bankrupting a project (and, for high volume products, a great way to get costs and size to a particular target)

Do you know have to make that *component* available for replacement? And, document it enough that a user could determine if it was failed or not?

The issue is WHO gets to decide how a product is designed, marketed and supported. If a manufacturer (likely infinitely more adept at understanding the issues related to manufacturing vs. a bureaucrat/legislator) decides that a particular course of action is best for it, should it be free to pursue that approach, letting The Market vote on its appropriateness? Or, should constraints be IMPOSED and the manufacturer (AND CUSTOMER) be forced to live with those constraints.

How many people do you know who have had their phones repaired, over the years (including maintenance things like replacing battery)? Contrast that to the number who have just opted to replace the phone THAT IS STILL OPERATIONAL?

Surely, there is reason to impose constraints on the design of such ubiquitous products -- if only to keep them out of landfills and make their precious metals more recoverable.

How many 60-100 inch TVs get scrapped -- because of a hardware failure on a 25 square inch PCB inside?

How many monitors are scrapped because of a failed inverter board?

Manufacturers, like all creatures, aim to protect themselves. They've spent money creating a product; what incentive to make it easy for others to copy or service THEIR product?

The *customer* should dictate what they consider to be essential (or desirable) in a product offering. If you are NOT likely to have your device repaired, how happy would you be to discover you paid more for it, initially, so that it *could* be repaired?

The phone that I presently use has a removable battery -- I can swap it out in seconds. Yet, this is NOT the norm. Obviously, The Market decided that this capability was not worth its cost (connector, removable door, physical constraints on the design, etc.).

The user/customer can always find a product from another party that is "closer" to his desires. There likely will be consequences and tradeoffs involved -- but, the customer is best qualified to make those decisions.

Nowadays, it is relatively easy to share experiences you[ve had with products, manufacturers, etc. Whereas manufacturers have to PAY for advertising, word-of-mouth can be an effective counteragent, often having an outsized place in a new purchase decision.

E.g., when I see folks looking at the refrigerator that we purchased, I *offer* the observation that the "skin" dents easily. And, can almost always find such a dent on whatever floor model is in front of them. This, my way of putting pressure (indirectly) on the manufacturer's offerings, going forward.

Should manufacturers be required to sell PRODUCTS at cost?

Who sets the standard. I ordered an RTC replacement battery from a place in an adjoining state. It took almost two weeks to arrive. Is it OK for me to deliver the replacement parts for your device on a similar schedule? Should I be 8required* to offer expedited shipping? Aren't you then legislating winners and losers in the markets on which *I* rely?

But, those would be NON-factory repair centers. Because the factory doesn't support repair of that product.

That's not true. Witness cell phones, laptops, desktops, etc. People replace things because they can. My neighbor just bought a new PC ("What's wrong with the old one?") Each of the big screen PCs that I've rescued was likely replaced because they didn't have room for *it* AND an even bigger one in their home!

The thirty three 4T SAS drives that I recently rescued were discarded after just *5* power on hours! No idea how many hours the 48 drive DAS that I pulled them from had on it! That;s a "business decision" that obviously made sense to SOME business owner!

Only if the additions:

- don't adversely affect reliability

- are exploited by someone WILLING to incur the cost of a repair

E.g., I solder down the memory in my designs instead of adding a socket. This means the user can't repair, replace or upgrade the memory (obviously, not a very user-friendly design decision, eh?) Yet, now don't have to rely on the cost of the socket, labor to install it (and populate it) *or* the ignorance of the user who thinks sockets can be used repeatedly without consequences (and anything that physically FITS "should work!")

That doesn't mean that "repairability" is the solution. If you want to encourage longer life (discourage replacement), then legislate with THAT goal in mind and let the manufacturer sort out how he is going to meet that goal.

I designed a product many years ago that had a stated 30 year expected, "service free" lifespan. The costs of servicing (or replacement) were probably 100X the cost of the device. This drove HOW the product was designed as you had to consider the impact of every design decision on that aspect of the design. (Of course, we were designing for quantities of 30 million units so you have extra opportunities available to your design process)

That still doesn't address the user who willingly "discards" the device in favor of a new version. Do you punish him by applying a "deposit" -- that is not redeemable for N years? Or, ban him from making new purchases for that period?

Are you acting as his advocate -- protecting his "investment" (despite limiting his ability to take advantage of newer offerings)? Or, are you trying to advocate for society by reducing waste?

Electronic devices tend to change quickly. E.g., in 13 years, there have been effectively *8* different versions of the Nest thermostat. You've probably replaced your cell phone two or three times. A laptop, once or twice. Car, similarly. Roof, once. Major appliances, less than once.

This is a desirable trait of electronic products -- there is continual improvement. People seem to WANT that in those offerings (even when they complain about it!)

How much has to be "discarded" to facilitate that is debatable. But, anything that requires labor will have a distorted sense of price/value.

E.g., the true "savings" in m current products comes in the act of installation as that's on-site labor. Do you have someone come to change the filters in your HVAC system each month? replace a $10 filter for the cost of a $100 service visit?

Available for replacement? Likely. Concerning documentation, if all device functions are inside a SOC you can probably describe pinout so that user or repair people can monitor signals on the pins and infer "no expected signal => faulty SOC".

You assume working market. But advanced designs tend to have unique features. For mass market products there are scale effect. Consequently, provider either have monopoly or near monopoly position and that leads to highly distorted market. Also, "good for manufacturer" may be quite different than "good for economy". You may look at old thing to understand: "easy" way to get some income is to charge tolls on roads. In medieval times this was extremaly widespread in Europe. Various local authorities had incentive to keep tolls close to pain level: lowering toll in one place would only moderately increase trafic leading to lower income for this place. Only when modern nation-states started to regulate (or if you prefer to say de regulate) the economy internal tolls were abandoned and that was significant factor to increasing economic activity.

I do not know. From what I have heard typical problems are failing fluorescent lamps and LED-s.

That is nice example: at point of making purchase typical customer does not know if battery is removable. That becomes an issue only few years later at which point there may be _no_ phones which are acceptable to the customer which have removable battery.

Maybe if you have a lot of money. But if you want "nonstandard" feature expect to pay 2-10 times as much (and possibly much more) compared to typical item.

There is a lot of products and tiny number of people that can competently judge those products. And many things get known only after delay. Various experiences in many cases only shows users lack of knowledge about products. And there are paid influeners, who pretend to be neutral, but have monetary interest in promoting specific opinions.

Well, I take "at cost" to be just a shothand. Clearly, without price limit offer of spare parts is meaningless. Consider manufacturer who do not want to keep any spares. Technical people may find out that 6 months is enough to get production line for given part running, and accountats could calculetate that cost of setting up production line and getting single run of parts is say 5.0e6 US$. So, manufacturer could say: parts are available, just pay as

Two weeks looks long. In Europe I think that norm is delivery within 24 hours from shipping. If you order on Friday evening, then shipping can happen on next Monday. More delay usually indicates that vendor do not have the product (or is hopelessly badly organised). OTOH, depending on the product two week wait for spare part may be reasonable. FYI, last time when I had my car repaired repair shop did not have spare parts on the spot. They ordered them from their vendor and had them delivered in few hours (actually, I think that this is a norm but fortunatly I have very little contact with car repair shops).

There is no need to have very detailed regulation. Lawyers use phrases like "vendor should ensure timely delivery using customary delivery mechanizm", with meaning that as long as vendor do normal things it is OK, but negligance or willful obstruction is punishable.

Sure.

One publicised case is tractors. New they seem to have six digit prices in US$ (maybe some in high 5 digit range). A farmer could expect them to work for say 50 years. Newer models may be more comfortable, easier to use. They may offer better fuel economy and some extra functions. Still, 50 year old tractor can perform its work. But newer ones have computer control, which when it does not work effectively disables the tractor. Manufactur tried to use copyright on the software to block independent repairs. And that led to legal battles.

In other thead you write about ovens. Did you consider that your oven works "as intended" by the manufacturer? That is manufacturer wants to either charge large service fee or possibly encourage you to replace the oven by a new one.

I probably can not repair that (I succesfully handled 20 pin SMD parts, but to the moment did not succeed with 48 pin one). But repair shops succesfully replace chips with many pins, so that alone does not contradict possibility of repair.

I would prefer device with user upgradeable memory, but if price is adequate and installed memory is adequate, then I have no trouble with such device. Trouble begins when vendor takes advantage of technical difficulties of users and third parties to play monopoly tricks.

Electronic devices sold in EU include cost of disposal in their price. I could imagine that consumer who unexpectedly early discards some device could still be requested to pay disposal fee. OTOH EU prefer to regulate manufacturing and supply side and let consumers to do silly things if they really want to.

In slightly different spirit, a lot of people in EU feel "squized", they pay more for neccessery things and their income does not increase. In many cases they would welcome opportunity for longer use of various devices. And they are more willing to use devices that were previously used by somebody elese.

I have my cell phone more than 20 years. I have a new desktop now, but for previous 16 years I used the same desktop. I have third laptop now. The first one I used about 10 years, but the touchpad failed and later power jack had problem (work in some position, does not work in different position). I looked inside and power jack is surrounded by (IIRC) video curcuitry with its screen and heat pipes. It looks that without special equipement it is impossible to access power jack without demaging critical components. Seems that designers spent some effort to make it unrepariable. OTOH it was not good job as it worked way past warranty period. The second one was a brilliant design: it failed mechanicaly close to end of warranty period. And manufacturer warranty does not cover mechanical failures. The third one is probably at end of its useful life: it developed mechanical problem which does not prevent use, but will likely lead to complete failure later and seem to have problem with power (I did not investigate deeper, so I do not know what is really happening).

If not the failures I would probably still use the first laptop.

I think that a lot of peoples buy new devices because old "does not work". It may be just failure of electronics. It may be sofware that needs upgrade to newer standards. It may be dependence on discontinued service from the vendor.

There are devices for which progress is in nonessential features. For example audio in late 70-s reached level that ordinary people wound not hear defect in the equipement. One can say that newer devices are better, but it makes almost no difference for odinary users. Modern LCD screens offer higher resolution, less flicker, lower power use than old CRT-s. They are lighter and almost flat. But for purpose of viewing TV or recoded films old CRT-s were quite adequate. Basically the main rational reason to replace them is power efficiency. And, AFAICS 10 year old LCD TV set should be essentially as good as a new one, except for possibly planned obsolescence, like discontinuation of services offered with old TV, or changes to video encoding.

I see improvement in computers, but it is not as fast as it used to be: in 16 years from my previous desktop to the current one single core performance grow about 3 times and the new one has