Rendered at 22:51:16 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
pwg 5 hours ago [-]
The journalist on the article missed the mark here:
"Manufacturers tend to be less supportive of right-to-repair efforts, as corporations stand to make more money charging for tools, replacement parts, and repair services than if they were to just let people fix things on their own."
This is not the reason manufacturers oppose right-to-repair. They oppose right to repair because a device that is repaired is one less sale of a new device, and they do not want anything interfering with that "new device sales treadmill".
TheCleric 4 hours ago [-]
I think it’s both but depends on the device. For a tractor or car the author’s case is mostly correct. For a smart watch it’s more likely what you describe.
erelong 58 minutes ago [-]
In fairness, it's not necessarily a great idea to have as a law as it prevents startups from creating "unrepairable" alternatives on the way towarda a more sustainable repairable future product
The ideal is more like a culture of businesses making repairabke products and consumers refusing to buy unrepairable slop
liz_ifixit 5 minutes ago [-]
The law requires that manufacturers have repair material availability parity between their authorized shops and independent shops. Basically, they can't unfairly restrict access to repair materials.
A startup isn't prevented from making whatever "unrepairable" alternative it wants. In fact, if it has no repair operation of its own, it's not required by the law to do anything at all. Most startups fall in that category.
HauntingPin 36 minutes ago [-]
> The ideal is more like a culture of businesses making repairabke products and consumers refusing to buy unrepairable slop
Past few decades have demonstrated that this ideal doesn't work. That's why we have laws. I've never understood why the HN crowd is so averse to forcing companies to account for the common good. It's proven to work.
"Manufacturers tend to be less supportive of right-to-repair efforts, as corporations stand to make more money charging for tools, replacement parts, and repair services than if they were to just let people fix things on their own."
This is not the reason manufacturers oppose right-to-repair. They oppose right to repair because a device that is repaired is one less sale of a new device, and they do not want anything interfering with that "new device sales treadmill".
The ideal is more like a culture of businesses making repairabke products and consumers refusing to buy unrepairable slop
A startup isn't prevented from making whatever "unrepairable" alternative it wants. In fact, if it has no repair operation of its own, it's not required by the law to do anything at all. Most startups fall in that category.
Past few decades have demonstrated that this ideal doesn't work. That's why we have laws. I've never understood why the HN crowd is so averse to forcing companies to account for the common good. It's proven to work.