HI version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
64% Positive
Analyzed from 1779 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#support#repair#don#devices#should#old#software#years#more#expensive
Discussion (55 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
The source of this number seems to come from here, on page 73:
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELE...
Interestingly, the number is over a span of 15 years, and is only the calculated "Growth and investment".
Other numbers are "Savings in production costs" at €15.6 billion, and "Consumer savings" at 25€ per consumer per year for an impressive total of €176.5 billion.
It also lists "Business adjustment costs" at €8.1 billion, "Business administrative costs" at just €69.8 million and "Implementation and enforcement" at €105.5 million.
I wonder why "Growth and investment" was chosed as the number to use. Maybe to keep emphasising their gist of "the EU is the future for sustainable growth"?
Also, here are the announcements by the Commission:
https://commission.europa.eu/news-and-media/news/right-repai...
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/right-to-repair-...
Repair cafes are nice hobby projects for pensionados but it is not going to move the needle.
Nevertheless, the point is not the electronic toothbrush, but rather the "BIG" stuff that costs much and it's creating a lot of garbage.
A 1200 euro TV that breaks after 5 years - are you willing to buy a new one just because?
Once you have that infrastructure in place, eventually also the "smaller" things will be cheaper to replace.
I've played with entrepreneurship most of my life - I know how "a solution looking for a problem" looks like. Any VC would laugh them out of the room.
Edit: don't get me wrong - there is a part of this that is almost free and only requires a bit of enforcement. That part is good, and it's exactly what governments should deal with. But anything that imposes direct or indirect costs should go through serious cost/benefit analysis.
If you want an economic argument there's no way to sell my free time for anywhere near the market rate on such a short notice.
> Manufacturers must also provide [...] access to spare parts at a reasonable price.
This is the important part. Stupid shit like 0.3€ soldering buttons to 200€ motherboards so the repair is expensive has got to go.
Hopefully data collection that supports device-specific repair cost breakdowns and tracking is part of this legislation.
Currently, manufacturers optimize for manufacturing -- it's cheaper to assemble with a $200 all-in-one board than a discrete button.
If it were more expensive to use an all-in-one board (say, because they were on the hook for repairs and/or buyers had a place to easily compare repair costs...) then they'd do otherwise.
Price/cost obfuscation is the root of a lot of inefficiencies.
Helsinki (for one) needs some real repair cafés.
Unfortunately regulations often don't go far enough.
I have a ~10 year old iPad Pro in perfect working condition. I can basically do nothing with it, and increasingly it can no longer even browse the internet because Safari is so outdated on it.
So it will be waste.
See similar story about Amazon bricking old Kindles: https://www.techradar.com/tablets/ereaders/amazon-bricking-c...
But, this regulation is still a tiny step in the right direction.
Imagine the cool things people could do with old iPads. Put Android or Ubuntu Touch and give it to people who cannot afford a tablet. Wall display for Home Assistant. Rip out the batteries and have a very low energy ARM server, etc.
And they won't let anyone install any other software onto the hardware, so I can't even rely on the free market providing what I want.
Because otherwise you won't buy new device for full price
Might help you get some more use out of it, thanks to the DMA :-)
Eh, what are you proposing? That these new regulations should cover +10 year old devices too?
Similarly I still have an iPhone with a lightning port instead of the legally mandated USB-C port, but at no point was I expecting Apple to somehow change the ports of existing devices.
I'd say that we need regulation requiring user-replacable software. Even though a PC might not be supported by Windows 11, and subsequently major browsers will cease support. You can still install a 3rd-party OS like Linux which will maintain support far beyond the original EoL.
Same goes for Android devices, I used to have an LG G2 (the phone, not the TV), which IIRC shipped with Android 4 or 5, and through LineageOS I updated it all the way to Android 11. Granted it couldn't remain relevant forever, its 32-bit ARM architecture is quite outdated and a lot of apps lost support for it, but for a while it remained quite useful.
If limited to the bootloader, such as allowing users to run their own operating system, then that is definitely a possibility, with the exception of firmware running on the device itself. But I doubt that is what most users here are expecting, and in my opinion, it wouldn't provide much value to the vast majority of customers.
They don't have to. Open up the platform for linux and custom OS.
You could make the argument that manufacturers only need to provide the means for the community to support the device, rather than extensive documentation. However, these communities are often so small that this would never be a priority for most companies. Combined with the IP-related issues, I don't think this is really feasible.
This may be the hope or expectation you have with regard to regulation, but I don't think it is ever going to happen because it would conflict with other regulatory requirements, especially in the realm of radio.
You may say "regulation can be changed" but radio regulations exist for real reasons and I doubt anyone could convince the major governing bodies otherwise.
Not to mention that such a requirement could effectively force companies to give up intellectual property that they have invested heavily in developing. What if a manufacturer outsources the firmware development to a vendor that specializes in firmware? If the manufacturer were required to release that firmware as open source, they would effectively be forcing that vendor to open-source its product. That could undermine the vendor's entire business model.
Allowing users install what they want on it would be the best case scenario.
Instead we have bullshit like "your TV is three years old? No updates for you": https://developer.samsung.com/smarttv/develop/specifications...
> They don't have to support it indefinitely.
How long should support for devices last in that case? And what should be supported?
Down the road, if we make it, we will have access to funds for a few roles that maintain spare parts and a repair (more likely replace/refurb) department, that will coordinate with our manufacturing houses.
None of this blocks innovation or velocity for early stage startups. Unless you have more concrete examples I'm somehow missing?