Daughter breaks Samsung phone, Politician proposes Right to Repair bill

If you were made Director of Right to Repair at Samsung or Apple or any major consumer electronics company, how would it all work?

Right to repair keeps popping up on Reddit and every time it does, I hear about it. This time, though, the news isn't coming from U.S. It's coming from right here, above the wall.

Jordan Pearson, writing for Vice's Motherboard:

A newly-proposed bill could become the first legislation to ensure individuals and independent shops can repair brand-name devices in North America.

Now, before anyone gets too excited, Vice is taking one private member bill in the Ontario provincial legislature and less reporting on it and more, I don't know, trying to actively wishful think it into a continent-wide revolution.

Ontario Liberal Party MPP Michael Coteau ran into this issue head-first after his daughter dropped his Samsung smartphone. An official repair job from the manufacturer was more expensive than just getting a new phone from his carrier, he told me over the phone."It's a shame," Coteau said, "because the Samsung S8 was very good for me. Everything was perfect. I would've kept using it. But now I've replaced it."On Thursday, Coteau introduced a private member's bill in provincial parliament that, if passed, would be the first "right to repair" law for electronic devices in North America. More than a dozen US states are currently considering similar bills, but nothing is on the books yet in the US or in Canada.The legislation proposes that tech companies make diagnostic tools, repair manuals, and official parts available to consumers at their request. The legislation would also require that any new products ship with a repair manual. Documents provided to consumers must be free unless they request paper copies, and parts, tools, and software must be provided at a fair price.

In the abstract, of course, I think this is great. But, what I'd like to any of these outlets or advocates do is actually sit down and map out how it would be implemented in the real world. Like, imagine you, tomorrow, were made Director of Right to Repair at Samsung or Apple or any major consumer electronics company, how would it all work?

New iPhone is introduced, can't even make enough to meet demand for the first 6 months. Would you set aside half the parts for repair, so you only have half as many to sell at launch? Maybe that's totally the right thing to do, I don't know yet, which is why I'm asking out loud. Or, maybe you only make the parts available one year out, when demand is in balance, and warranty coverage is ending. Is that the best of both worlds?

How do you protect people from crap lithium-ion batteries that could burn down their car, house, or an airplane? Politicians, publications, and pundits love to throw around the words "cheap repairs" but the cost of that can be astronomical in terms of human and property damage. Maybe any and all regulation should cover the repairs and not just the manufacturers?

And how do you protect security and privacy? If companies are required to provide hardware or software that can, for example, connect swapped out fingerprint or facial scanners, what's to stop criminals from getting them and using them on stolen phones? Governments for using them on phones they wouldn't otherwise be allowed to break into?

Maybe companies should be forced to disclose, up front, parts or products that can't easily be self-repaired, so customers are always making informed decisions. Or maybe companies that can't or don't want to supply all or any parts should be required to provide accessible repair services at cost, or maybe customers should vote with our wallets and buy from the companies that best suit not just our tastes but our philosophies.

Again, I don't have any answers here, which is why I'm going to keep asking questions.

Rene Ritchie
Contributor

Rene Ritchie is one of the most respected Apple analysts in the business, reaching a combined audience of over 40 million readers a month. His YouTube channel, Vector, has over 90 thousand subscribers and 14 million views and his podcasts, including Debug, have been downloaded over 20 million times. He also regularly co-hosts MacBreak Weekly for the TWiT network and co-hosted CES Live! and Talk Mobile. Based in Montreal, Rene is a former director of product marketing, web developer, and graphic designer. He's authored several books and appeared on numerous television and radio segments to discuss Apple and the technology industry. When not working, he likes to cook, grapple, and spend time with his friends and family.

38 Comments
  • As you suggest, "Right to repair" is one of those terms that people instinctively rally around without thinking critically. It sounds so "right" and is certainly well meaning. There are also legitimate issues over major products like farmers not being able to repair hugely expensive machines without going to a factory authorized repair center that need to be worked on. But back to critical thinking, in addition to the likely loss of security, having many more dangerously modified/repaired devices being sold on the aftermarket, they especially don't understand that EVERYONE will have to pay higher costs to allow for the desire of an extremely tiny amount of people who would really want to repair their own phones. If it were ever actually enacted, companies would have to spend a fortune to not only stock parts,, but to set up and maintain systems for individual consumers to order parts, return parts, etc. Undoubtedly, companies would have to store inventories for years. Even more importantly, once well meaning, but ill informed legislators enacted a law, they would quickly realize they also needed to mandate that in addition to making parts and tools and manuals available, they would have to mandate that products be manufactured in a way that would allow consumers to make the repairs, which would lead to massive amounts of litigation to enforce this new "right" , e.g., Apple you can't solder this component, or use this glue, etc., Putting emotions aside, It's not hard to imagine the impediments this would create to innovation and manufacturing, and how it would lead to increased manufacturing costs that 99.99% of consumers would have to suffer from, along with the nightmare of consumers unknowingly buying some device "repaired" by someone in their living room.
  • Security? We are not going into the chip with lasers reprograming them. Software again not an issue with either iPhone or any of the newer Mac's This is just FUD! Dangerous? It would be less not more! Having access to the REAL batteries from the given device maker would be a lot better! Than what some fly by night sellers are selling because theres a captive audience. Costs? Surprisingly it wont alter the device cost. In some cases the cost will be less than what is being asked for by the makers. Parts stocking will be a bit higher not to the degree you are implying - More FUD. Ordering parts? Setting up a web site to place orders. Gee, Apple already has this for their products, just clone the system and convert it to parts, once done its done! I'll give you there will be shipping issues where I could see a small fee would be required. Even still there are companies which would love to be a clearinghouse for the small orders and the local repair shops would likely not have a problem adding the requested parts with their normal order. I do that now! All you've done is spouted out - Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. Not a single piece of fact or experience on how shops work or even people who have worked within major manufacture know the reality. This is not a big leap for Apple, Samsung or any other phone or computer maker. And its vital to our Farmers!
    If a reaper fails in the middle of harvest the crop could be lost! That's 100's of thousands of dollars! They can't wait for someone to pick up the equipment take it to the shop and get it back (plug the costs). That could be a week or more when they might be able to fix it quickly and just jump into the pickup to the Fedex drop point for the needed part which might be a day or two if not sooner!
  • I tend to agree with the part about in order for a few people to benefit from The Right to Repair all will have to pay.
    We cannot put all cases together in one big bag. A washing machines that only need a small 20$ part that used to be sold individually but is now sold assembled to a larger part that is 10 times the price, that is an issue.
    For electronics I don't see this happening. Here is one reason not to get into it: privacy and security.
    "All Mac portables with the Apple T2 Security Chip feature a hardware disconnect that ensures that the microphone is disabled whenever the lid is closed. This disconnect is implemented in hardware alone, and therefore prevents any software, even with root or kernel privileges in macOS, and even the software on the T2 chip, from engaging the microphone when the lid is closed."
    I can easily imagine a third party repair shop adding an extra more "hackable" microphone and connect it somewhere on the logic board so he<s able to spy on me; or a key loogger. Security through software is weaker than through hardware and that requires to keep third party out of the repair equation for certain things. This is not a FUD, these concerns for me are more legitimate than a guy's daughter breaking his phone. Until we can get a decent intelligent way of having all these benefits in a repairable device I will stick with where it is headed now. Beside, electronics are getting more recyclable all the time and often taken back and refurbished/recycled by your vendor - if your favorite manufacturer is not doing this buy somewhere else. Now for this guy's tractor what if the third party somehow compromised some vital safety features while repairing the tractor? There needs to be some safeguards somewhere and simply opening everything up, like it used to be, may be setting us all backward on safety, security and privacy.
  • A hackable microphone? Come on not even possible! Just more FUD! Take the time to review the IFIXIT teardowns or other hardware breakouts. There is just 1: no room, 2: no means to connect it 3: no means to access the data stream. Sure you could put in a spy chip into the device gee! didn't we go through that FUD with the teeny tiny spy chip in the servers?? FYI https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-10-04/the-big-hack-how-chin... & https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/10/fbi-director-wray-on-super-micro-servers... - JUST FUD!! The poor farmer issue: Come on... You really are reaching here. Not truth to this! We want the real OEM parts so how is replacing the part with the OEM part going to hurt you? By the way all cars need to be sealed up too right? They are more of a safety issue than one tracker in a field. Again! FUD, FUD & FUD The truth will set you free! Right to Repair makes sense for all!
  • Wow, you are so angry. And I don't like you speaking for me, right to repair doesn't make sense to me for electronics and FYI most people really don't care about it. If you want them to care you'll have to find a better way of talking to them.
    Right to repair activists are often Right to Hack proponents but they can't say that out-loud. Hackers are creative but also dangerous in many ways.
    There is plenty of room in a laptop to do all these, even in a cell phone. Microphones are really tiny bits of hardware; key loggers not much bigger. Repairable often means connectors between the different parts and when you have these then you can do a lot of things, bypass a lot of safeguards. Just spend some time on Youtube and you'll find thousands of videos on how to do just that (a lot of these in chinese I'm afraid).
    For the tractor, I can speak first hand because that happened on the farm where I grew up, a creative mechanic "modified" the bracket of safety cage and guess what happened to the driver when the tractor was involved in an accident and flipped on the back?
    Of course the manufacturer was sued, the poor mechanic didn't have a dime to offer to the victim. Guess what now, the manufacturer made sure the safety cage is welded on and not repairable anymore.
  • People doing dumb things has nothing to do with the Right to Repair. In fact having things documented would warn people from doing the more obvious stupid things. Hiding knowledge doesn't work. Wait until your gear fails you, then you'll care ;-}
  • The parts issue is not that hard a reach! Apple and all of the others have a stock of parts which they put aside in portion to the number of units sold. No one is expecting the quantity of parts held in reserve to be so great. True, they may need to scale up a bit but not that excessively and they would need to ramp up as units sold. The issue of availability only gets into how the given company stages their parts. Most have regional warehouses similar to how manufactures of cars, washing machines, stoves and boilers handle things. If they are access to a parts listing then they should be able to order via email or other web based order entry system. One tricky issue is 3rd party parts. Just look at the car industry which has other party parts NAPA and Auto Zone being two I know of. These are either rebuilt or direct replacement parts which are not OEM. The issue of salvaged parts is then the last question today independents mostly use salvaged parts from other broken devices! So far the issues of reused parts has not been a problem. In all cases I think its important the servicer disclose the parts source and if the customer has a preference their wishes need to be agreed to. All in all this is not such a big leap! I could see order processing and shipping costs being the only real issue. But are people really going to bother Apple or other company for a 5 - 20 dollar part if they could just go to a local shop who would likely just add it to their parts order for a small fee? If the companies wanted they could hire a clearinghouse to handle the processing and the dispatching of the parts (Fedex & UPS offer these services!) Presently IFIXIT and Motorola have a partnership! https://ifixit.org/blog/11644/motorola-ifixit-partnership/
  • Nice fud from you Rene as usual. "How do you protect people from crap lithium-ion batteries that could burn down their car, house, or an airplane?" 99.99% of the people doing RTR are doing so with legitimate branded parts. Case in point: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vA_em-0VYWY It's the scare tactics from Apple (and parroted by their minions - aka you) that keep people from seeking out these legitimate and often times far cheaper repair options than those you'll find at he so-called "Genius Bars".
  • Exactly narthalus. I am doing repairs in my area and I will use only quality parts, not crap.
  • If we had direct access to the REAL Apple batteries I would put them in! So, were can I buy the battery? Not from Apple! Unless they install it! So what does a bloke to do in a country with no Apple Store or authorized service center? Mmm ... Get what they can get from any source good or bad!
  • Consumers like CHEAP; they are willing to trade quality, security, and privacy for price. Even if Apple provided parts, like batteries or security chips, there will always be cheaper products marketed. A security chip might not do anything other than say "Yes, security is okay" whether it is or not. This insecure, lobotomized chip that Apple would never approve would find traction because of a cheap price. Is that necessarily a problem? Maybe you have chip designers that make a chip that sends data back to them, they have an incentive to design and manufacture a chip that could actively harm the consumer rather than just passively bypass a feature. Hey, make this version of the chip practically free and you'll see a lot of adoption.
    Now consider a replacement battery that just gets hotter than Apple's battery? Again, most consumers would trade a little more heat for a cheaper price. But these small, closed systems are interrelated; changing the heat dissipation could damage other parts of the phone. You may have only replaced the battery, does this "right to repair" mean you can get a fried motherboard just because you didn't touch the motherboard? That doesn't seem right.
    Sure, phones could be made in a totally modular manner, but even with smaller components today, we'd be headed back to phones as thick as candy bars solely due to cover the legal liability of any possible damage from anyone with a soldering iron.
    Maybe that's where phones should head. There's a lot to be said about old Apple II's that every part (including the ROMs) could be replaced with chips made by others. Personally, I don't break my phones and I wouldn't want legal requirements that can only be met with such modularization.
    There is a trade-off to "Right to Repair". Don't think this is solely an egalitarian movement to stop greedy corporations.
  • There is no reason to replace the T2 chip. Thats just more FUD! The focus is the same parts Apple uses for FRU's for their stores, service centers and depot. No one is expecting every single part here! That's just not economical for Apple or any other phone or computer maker. I wouldn't expect Apple or any company give the independents the house keys to the kingdom! Apple will still be needed to deal with messed up TouchID units. The Right to Repair movement is more about keeping e-waste out of the land fills and keeping still quite useful devices in use. Our society (worldwide) is so waste full. And so far the big corporations are not even looking over the edge of the issue! Look at the movement to rid us of one use plastic bags. If the bag industry had half a brain they would have made a big effort in the back end on recovery and recycling on the bags instead of letting them clog up our ponds, lakes, rivers seas and oceans! Today you can't buy Sea Salt without it having plastic in it!
  • I agree. Right to Repair often means Right to Hack.
  • That makes no sense! Nothing stopping people today from hacking their gear now. Right to Repair does not alter things.
  • So an official repair job would cost more than just getting a new phone, huh? I expect he was looking at a subsidized or upgrade price. Doesn't say what broke, but imagining it was the screen, a new screen/digitizer on Amazon is about $180. You can buy one and try to install it yourself. UbreakIfix says they'll do it for $220. I don't see that you can't repair a phone, or get it repaired, now. Just like cars today, the parts are expensive, in lots of 1, and it does take some skill to do the work. If you are clumsy, buy the insurance. Legislating 'Right to Repair' isn't going to make this any cheaper.
  • Simple fact is that very few people are interested in repairable devices because it will make them larger and heavier. Like that Infinity Display on your Galaxy? Well, that will never be a user serviceable part. Like your thin and lightweight MacBook or iPad? These can’t exist in their current form factors unless RAM and CPU aren’t socketed. Requiring compliance with repairable design standards will force a reversion to a previous generation of designs.
  • Not true. My dell notebook is within the same dimesions as my sons MacBook air (2017). I can change any component in my dell in 15 min. From the SSD, Ram, CPU Fans, CPU, etc. So to say to have thin and light, you need non repairable is just buying into the apple reality distortion field.
  • Dell makes many notebooks. Which one exactly?
  • I have an inpsiron 13" 2 in 1. Yes, his air tapers to thinner at the end, but everywhere else is basically the same size.
  • Agreed! And there are other systems like yours Dell that are much more repairable. Common sense has been lost in Apple! Keyboards & trackpads need to be replaceable as they often fail forcing a complete uppercase exchange needlessly. Even I/O ports need replacing without needing to replace the entire logic board. At least the USB-C ports are now exchangeable!
  • There's a such thing as form over function, everything needs an equilibrium. Apple used to make beautiful computers that were repairable. If they have to make it thicker, so be it, it's worth it and you know that that's true, unless you have more money than sense.
  • Form over function is fine for things you look at. Not for things you use.
  • I should mention that my comment was for Apple making computers thicker (if necessary) to make them repairable, I'm for user-servicability. Macs were repairable before, so they should be now, and Apple is wrong to have these components soldered in, or making the user have to unscrew 100 tiny non-standard screws to get to things.
  • I would go for legislation that would force all manufacturers to offer more than the standard one year warranty.
    IMO, iPhones should come with a 2 - 3 year manufacturers warranty.
    Dropping and breaking the phone on the other hand should be the responsibility of the user.
  • You mean like in the EU? "EU law stipulates that you must give the consumer a minimum 2-year guarantee (legal guarantee) as a protection against faulty goods, or goods that don't look or work as advertised."
  • Yes, that would be a great place to start.
  • That would increase the price of each and every device. I am happy with the current 1 year and I don't want to pay for more. If you're worried you have the option to buy an extended warranty.
  • Why not four years, five years, etc? Things aren't free. The rest of us will have to pay for this in more expensive phones.
  • To Renee Ritchie's question: "If you were made Director of Right to Repair at Samsung or Apple or any major consumer electronics company, how would it all work?" I'd have to follow the letter of the law and nothing more. Anything short of that would be illegal, and anything more could compromise my product. It's also hard to talk about this without knowing what that legislation is. For discussion, I'll assume it takes on two parts. 1. Manufacturers must provide instructions and sell parts for third-parties to perform repairs. AND 2. the manufacturer can not invalidate warranty on a device repaired by a third-party, if that repair didn't effect the new repair. Those two things are going to have a much different impact on highly integrated devices like cell phones than for larger devices like a John Deere tractor. But assuming we're talking high-tech devices, I can see pressure for ALL tech companies to make these changes: FIRST CHANGE: REDUCE INTEGRATION
    I'd modularize my company's product where the law says the repairs are legally unrelated. The battery would be it's own module; the screen in its own; the CPU board in its own. Much of the shell will be empty space to keep the battery and it's heat sequestered from other parts (and less space for a modularized battery means reduced battery-life or a thicker module). The screen would probably be thicker with an ugly gasket around the edge because it's a liability to have tight integration that could compromise other parts. The goal would NOT intentionally to make the product uglier, but we're modularizing due to the legal and financial troubles if we don't keep the failure areas APART. On the down side, design beauty will definitely take a back-seat; but it will be more replaceable at a modular level. SECOND CHANGE: TIGHTEN TOLERENCES
    For an individual modules that still needs to be repairable (such as a CPU board), design them so that only robots could achieve any level of consistent success with assembly or disassembly. As a moral plus, that would eliminate much "sweat shop labor", although it would also eliminate any incentive to design "human convenience" into a module's assembly or disassembly. Today, pentalobe screws and massive amounts of glue are hard for a human to deal with, but not impossible. I still bet it's a lot easier to disassemble with Apple's robot "Liam" than it is with a glue gun and a magnifying glass. Although it would still be legally possible to repair yourself, the incentive would be to design integrated modules with ridiculously tight tolerances. THIRD CHANGE: REDUCE INNOVATION
    Eliminate any innovative part my company makes unless it's protected by patents. On the one hand, my instructions to repair or replace a screen part I outsourced from another manufacturer might just be "See our part supplier, Samsung.". Parts I design will be harder to protect; trade secrets will be even less sufficient to protect my intellectual property than they are today. For any parts my company creates, I will be responsible for publishing instructions to assemble, disassemble, and repair, as well offering replacement parts. Anything that I have to release with instructions that extensive makes it much easier for my competitors to copy. People will still have incentive to patent ideas to protect your innovation. But without patents it's going to be cheaper and legally compelling just to use parts from a third-party rather than innovate myself. FOURTH CHANGE: GOODBYE EXTENDED WARRANTIES
    My company would see the sale of extended warranties as opening a longer window for legal liability. Sorry, but the sale of extended warranties wouldn't be worth it. I'd also expect that my company would also shorten all manufacturer warranties to the legal minimum (30 days in most places, right?). Reduce claims I make about my device and what is covered by warranty. I might design it to be waterproof up to 30 meters, but I'll claim it is not warrantied against water-damage even in a light rain. If I'm a company that prides itself on quality, I'll still design my devices well and let my durable devices build a positive reputation in the marketplace. If I'm a company that prides itself on low price, I might just be willing to take the gamble that my low prices will overshadow any negative reputation I get for crappy quality. I can see no company having an incentive to offer a warranty any better than "It worked out of the box for thirty days, right?" FIFTH CHANGE: GREAT OUT-OF-BOX WARRANTIES
    I'd encourage a very liberal warranty for the 30 days it had to be offered. If a device is under the 30-day warranty, and it has ALL original parts, it will only be exchanged completely for a new device. There should be zero temptation to take your device to a third-party during the legal warranty window. I still don't know how you'd handle the Chinese scam where customers would take devices, replace parts, and return them. While also satisfying the right for you to repair-your-own device before it is returned under warranty. I think you'd have to work with your lawyers to come up with a compromise for this, but from the customer's perspective that first 30-days should be effortless coverage. SIXTH CHANGE: PART COSTS SKYROCKET
    I'd undoubtedly insist on increasing part costs for first-party parts. Most likely I'd have to get my accountants to treat as much of my product's sale price as part costs rather than just categorized as profit today. Why? See that generic chip on the motherboard that's made by Qualcom? Notice that it has my company's logo silk-screened on it's top. That makes my chip worth $200 compared to the Qualcom $100 generic chip. If you want to risk using that chip as a replacement (as is your right), you can get the chip from Qualcom... if you're sure you want a third-party replacement chip. But from my company you'll pay through the nose. Ideally a company's accountant will make it so that if you bought every part of the device from my parts line, you'd pay just a few dollars less than buying an already assembled device. You can't legislate morality. Companies will not suddenly keep making the same products, publish repair guides, sell replacement parts for the same price, and keep the same policy for warranties. I'm all for reducing e-Waste, reducing sweat shop labor, and stopping companies from forcing me to use their own products (like printer toner) if there are equally good replacements. While that's high-minded, that's not what's going to happen in the marketplace. I'm a geek who modded my TiBook with a pentalobe screwdriver and a heat gun, but even I don't see a compelling benefit that I will have MORE ability to repair as being worth the negative changes to the tech ecosystem.
  • Don't you think the consumer is smarter than to fall for all of this? Why would I buy a product that is less serviceable? Once the truth comes out the company will face the backlash. Gee ... Isn't Apple facing that now with the messed up keyboards & display cable issues with the MacBook Pro's? Others have faced this as well and in some cases it killed them! Iomega was a tech darling for years and died as it wouldn't repair its own gear! Others as you even acknowledged hold you hostage by controlling the toner or other supplies.
  • Most people buy stuff with their hearts, not with their heads.
    Apple build the least serviceable devices compared to their competitors; not a lot of people care about it. Apple got much bigger exactly when they stopped caring too much about it: iPods, iPads, iPhones, MacBook Air, Apple TV, Apple Watch, etc. But they do offer good and trustworthy, hence expensive, repair services.
    You buy Apple you don't buy cheap, you won't get cheap service. If you're not happy with this then you don't buy Apple.
    But you get something for the extra money: better security and privacy.
  • As Rene's question was posed, I'm not speaking from the consumer's point of view but the companys'. Today, the market is a trade-off of "Features, Quality, Price: Pick 2". The consumer wants all 3, but a company has to make a device with trade-offs in those three areas, because if they don't then their competitors will. Why doesn't a company today have a repairable phone? First, because it's not a high priority for consumers. Many don't have a problem with their phone during the two-three years before they replace it. Second, because the sleek small designs that ARE a consumer priority must have a tightly integrated device and that makes it difficult to repair (see iFixit). I don't know what will be "standard practice" if laws like this go into effect (since the proposed laws today are vague), but most companies will choose to comply with the letter of the law and no more. Will there now be market pressure rewarding companies to make their devices easier to repair than their competitors? If there isn't today, I don't see why consumers will love such devices more in the future. Designs will get bulkier. Off-the-shelf parts will be favored far more than custom ones. And all so I don't have to use the manufacturer to repair my phone that probably won't fail anyway. I've heard the story of John Deere adding unneeded tech to their tractors to prevent third-party repairs and void warranties (motherboard failed? sorry, you changed your own oil last month, you voided the warranty!). I think that repairability is a high-priority for farmers and these practices are hurting John Deere today (though they appear to think it's sustainable). I don't see that same priority among tech consumers at all! No modular, repairable cell phone has succeeded because consumers don't like the tradeoffs in other features, quality, or price. Legislating right-to-repair is not suddenly going to make consumers appreciate their right-to-repair.
  • A common theme in many of the "pro RTR" posts is that people only want a few "simple" parts to repair, not complicated ones, like T2 chips. But that's not how it would work. Once a RTR would be established, you don't get to decide what someone decides they want to repair, so companies would have to make them all available, along with the tools, manuals, etc., for every part. You don't get to decide what someone will modify, honk up, etc., and then put out on the market that is dangerous. At the end of the day, there are a ridiculously tiny amount of people who would legitimately want to try and take apart and work on their smart phone, compared to the costs that everyone else would bear in terms of limitations on design/innovation/security and increased costs. Smart phones and other highly technical devices are much different than unreasonable limitations on farmers, etc., repairing farm machines.
  • Take the time to read the Apple repair manuals that are posted. No one is expecting more than that. The T2 chip is not a replaceable part only the full logic board. Lets take your argument and roll with it. Today if I wanted to I could replace the T2 chip but that still won't work as the design of the chip won't allow a replacement to work (its serialized internally). So after the Right to Repair becomes law how would that change things? It wouldn't!
  • You're missing a key point when you make claims like "no one is expecting more than . . . " That's not how it would work once a "right to repair" would be established in law. Every single person, entity, government, etc., will have the right to sue a manufacturer for thwarting their interpretation of the right. If there is a part, and I have the right to repair it, then companies will have to make that stock and make that part available to me, detailed manual on how to make the repair, the special tools to do so, etc. It's not just a screen or battery replacement, I want to be able to repair everything, so make it so. Oh, and don't make any design or manufacturing changes that make a previously accessible part inaccessible or that will be a lawsuit. And, of course, you can't fail to honor warranty once I've opened and messed with this phone. What a nightmare that hundreds of millions of people will suffer and pay for, so a tiny number of people can hack away at their smart phone in their basement.
  • HP and others offer their service manuals online and offer access to the parts without the requirement of a law. It's the sticks in the mud that have forced the issue! The law is based on what was written for auto mechanics that has passed is a few states already: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_Vehicle_Owners%27_Right_to_Repair_Act You've over reached the intent of the law, no-one is suing car markers! You really need to read the Mass law (or the others) your scare tactics is just more FUD. I'm sure your one of the payed trollers from Apple or other company thats fighting so hard. The game is over my friend! The truth will set us free from your tyranny! Unlike you I work for a living fixing computers and I've worked for major computer companies designing the gear and software. And no one is paying me to be a spin doctor.
  • Take that tin foil hat off and stop trying to mislead people. The motor vehicle repair laws you refer to are nothing like what you and others are proposing where individuals would have the "right" to get parts, manuals, etc., to repair their phones. To quote from your own Wiki link, the intent of that law was to make it clear that auto manufacturers had to continue to (they were already doing it) make the same information available to independent repair shops that they provided to their dealerships. "The Motor Vehicle Owners' Right to Repair Act, sometimes also referred to as Right to Repair, is a name for several related proposed bills in the United States Congress and several state legislatures which would require automobile manufacturers to provide the same information to independent repair shops as they do for dealer shops." iFixit and others aren't claiming they don't know have the information to try and make repairs. They complain that Apple's designs, "glueing, soldering, etc., etc., " all make it difficult to repair. The right to repair movement regarding tech devices is trying to piggyback on legitimate concerns about farm machines and other manufacturers abusive practices meant to monopolize repair industry. That's not what is going on with smart phones.
  • Sorry guy not true! The Mass law for auto mechanics is the template that is being used with only two words changed! Take the time to read it, it covers every type of device equally. And the thrust is very focused to get manuals & serviceable parts just like the original law Yes, iFixit does complain about the excessive glue and the excessive modularity. Which makes servicing overly hard and expensive! As an example the 2016 MacBook Pro's have major keyboard issues, yet the keyboard subassembly is not replaceable unlike the older models. There is no technical reason to have done this. It also effects Apples own ability to repair or even use an improved part (2018 version). A second example is the display assembly used in the newer MacBook Pro's is now three times as expensive than what the last models and less repairable for simple failures (display cable). All products have a weak point not being able to fix it makes it an expensive paperweight! Our society needs to be off the throw-a-way kick! Recycling todays products is also getting more expensive and not healthy for the people doing it or the environment! Try taking out 1000's batteries out of the iPhone without damaging as they are so tightly glued in. Only the last few models has addressed this by using pull-tab glue strips but even that is not as good as a screwed clip used in other phones.