I think this whole open source and right to repair/modify will be very interesting with self-driving cars, because of their interaction with the commons. Here are some issues.<p>There have been some discussions about the ethics of self-driving cars if it should sacrifice the lives of the people in the cars to save more lives. In a right to repair/modify wouldn't a lot of people pay to have the algorithm changed for their car to always favor the people in the car no matter what?<p>If the self-driving software is completely open source, you can exploit the collision avoidance algorithms to favor aggressive driving with your car. For example if the software tries to keep a 15 foot buffer between cars, you can"tune" your software to use a shorter buffer and cut in front of traffic more easily.<p>Law enforcement will campaign for a remote "pull over" command to prevent people from fleeing police.<p>The answers to these types of questions will be very important for open source going forward.
This was a hugely frustrating thing for me recently.<p>I picked up a used Pioneer AVR on eBay a few years ago and had no issues with it until I decided to plug my wife's older plasma television in because my main TV decided to take up an unusual smoking habit. It refused to connect to the new TV, indicating an HDCP error, despite working when plugged directly in to any of the attached devices. A quick google search yielded the likely culprit: my firmware was out of date. This model was one version behind but, unfortunately, was one model-year behind the ones that allowed for online updates. So I called Pioneer and was told they do not provide firmware updates directly to consumers and I could only get a firmware update from an authorized repair center. Besides the added frustration of having to disconnect the 30 or so cables, cart this thing across town, then come back at a later date to pick it up and plug it all back in, the fee was going to be half of what I had paid for the thing in the first place. So DRM caused a product I'm using legally to fail and the simple software fix was not allowed to be applied by me.<p>After following several dead links, I managed to find a forum where someone posted a Dropbox link to the firmware, making me a firmware pirate (aaarr!). This incredibly technical process that can only be performed at an authorized service center? Extract a file to a USB key, insert said key, turn on device while holding down <i>two</i> buttons and wait until the screen says it's done.<p>Pioneer's approach here succeeded in making me a "former customer" at some point in the future since the firmware update fixed my problem.
I used to do after-market repair medical equipment (MRI's, CT's, X-Ray, etc). One of the biggest frustrations was:
$manufacturer wants $5000 to repair a CT. We'd charge $1000.<p>We'd repair the CT, and it would pass all the built-in diagnostic tests. But then when the customer went to make a scan, a pop-up would appear saying "Unauthorized Repair! Call $manufacturer to fix!".<p>$manufacturer repair tech would come in, plug in a usb-key, type a code, and charge $1000. They didn't run any of the diagnostics, and were basically paid to keep the usb-key available.<p>I believe in the right to repair, because preventing it just causes artificial monopolies and price-gouging.<p>(note: I don't remember actual prices. Numbers were just made up)
I think electronics should be designed for repair and easy recycling as a main design goal.<p>For example a cell phone, you could build it with an aluminum back
with small phillips screws instead of glued back. Open the phone up with a standard screw driver and you will be able to replace the battery, main board and screen yourself.<p>What kind of environment do you want to leave for future generations. A big pile of electronic garbage or a world as clean as it could be? What about the carbon foot print of upgrade phones every two years?<p>If we can reuse electronics components the garbage foot print should be smaller.<p>Why do we have to throw a working screen and battery in a cell phone if you just want to upgrade the cpu speed or camera of your phone?<p>How about laws that require that consumers should be able to repair their things, average life time.<p>Good projects on the right path so far
Google has Project Ara
Fairphone2
As someone who came of tinkering age in the early 70s and spend lots of time taking apart and repairing old machines, I wish to express another concern. How do we expect to hook the next generation of engineers if there is no opportunity to tinker as a child? For me that spark (excuse the pun) definitely came from those early "break it/fix it" sessions. Is tinkering going to be relegated to playing with the public APIs of our devices? I assume that most devices don't have public APIs - you need to get a dev license and sign an NDA. What ten year old is going to do that? Will only the children of engineers at major tech companies be able to tinker? I see bad unintended long term consequences for our society.
John Deere is attempting to make sales of their tractors 'leases' to enforce their ban on self repair:<p><a href="http://www.wired.com/2015/04/dmca-ownership-john-deere/" rel="nofollow">http://www.wired.com/2015/04/dmca-ownership-john-deere/</a>
For me, Apple devices are always what come to mind when thinking about ability to repair and modify. I used to not mind when I couldn't open my iPod Classic to replace the battery, because failures like this rarely occurred and when they did Apple repaired them easily. Today however, when something as trivial as a computer memory upgrade is restricted, and the Genius Bar is overloaded with iPhone screen repairs, I find myself wanting some sort of standards with regards to repair rights.
Honestly, most products are becoming so integrated, and so delicate, that "repair" means "replace the one expensive bit."<p>Couple that with every lighter, ever thinner, ever flimsier, glue based laminated construction, needed to hit market size and weight requirements, and you get absolutely no economic sense in designing for, or supporting, repair.<p>In a sense, it's our growing skill at mass fabrication, and the growing cost of skilled human knowledge workers, that is driving this "not economically repairable" phenomenon.<p>Do we really want heavier, clunkier, more expensive things, that can be repaired? The planet may approve, but the Wall Mart shopper sure doesn't!
No need for a "Right" to repair. What is needed is abolishment of intellectual property laws which allow companies to claim what you think is your legitimately purchased property. The core problem with intellectual property is that it trumps physical property.<p>Companies shouldn't be forced by government to make repairable devices. A better way would be some sort of "Repair Coalition" of consumers and companies which agree to boycott unrepairable products and respectively produce repairable products with instructions.
If substantial numbers of consumers are demanding fixable/open electronics, a manufacturer could comply and fill a great need! My guess is that market is v small. Regulation is unneccessary here.
I think that measures like planned obsolescence and preventing consumers from repairing the devices that they own should not be legal. They should be treated similarly to anti-competitive practices.
I once had to fix a fairly complex piece of electronics and when I asked the company for a repair, they told me the directions over the phone. Unscrew this, take that out, check this, boom.<p>I was more than impressed by their confidence in their hardware.
I don't really understand this fight. Why not let the market sort it out? I for one stopped buying Macbooks as soon as they were being glued shut. My 2011 MBP can be opened, I put 16 GB of RAM in there and a TB SSD. I know Apple thinks it is ridiculous [0] to use a 5 yr old PC but the thing is blazing fast. I'll never buy a laptop that is unusable in 5 years time when there are also models with up to 3 m.2 slots available at only a slightly increased size. Vote with your wallets people, that is the only way to do fair fighting in this case!<p>[0] <a href="http://thenextweb.com/opinion/2016/03/21/apple-hypocritical-insensitive-pc-users-old-pc/#gref" rel="nofollow">http://thenextweb.com/opinion/2016/03/21/apple-hypocritical-...</a>
The French have an approach to this problem as well "forcing manufacturers to tell consumers how long their appliances will last. French companies will also have to inform consumers how long spare parts for the product will be available"[1].<p>IMHO, because it would only apply to French manufacturers, it will drive any manufacturing outside of France. Similar to the 35 hour work week: interesting principle, bad outcome.<p>[1] <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/shortcuts/2015/mar/03/has-planned-obsolesence-had-its-day-design" rel="nofollow">https://www.theguardian.com/technology/shortcuts/2015/mar/03...</a>
Did you know that in Victoria, Australia it's illegal for you to change your own light bulbs unless you're a registered electrician? Not kidding. When I moved there I went to the local supermarket and then electronics shop to buy a replacement phone wall jack and they looked at me funny and both asked 'you're not going to install that yourself are you?'. It's insane!<p>I can remember my mum changing bloody power outlets in our house in New Zealand when I was young, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to turn off the breaker for that circuit then screw three cables into an outlet faceplate. Only thing some people don't know is that it's a good idea to make the earth wire a little longer if it's not already so it's the last to disengage if ripped out / whatever.
While I hate companies suing people for repairing their own properties, "right" has been overused so many places. What a sensational word! I have the "right" to not being sued! What?<p>I would advocate companies certify other entities as repairing authorities or just do a good job themselves; providing the support. Of course it will reduce their product sale and that would be a huge deal to us consumers as well because we want them to do well and providing better product next round.<p>However, it is dangerous that we use sale as THE primary measure. I believe companies should take pride in the quality of their products and services. They should inspire customer loyalty, not unethical growth to please Wall Street.
I can't believe we're having this discussion over 40 years after the passage of Magnuson-Moss, which covered similar ground. (Okay maybe a stretch, but thematically similar.)<p>If we go down this road, you'll be at the behest of all manufacturers. It's injurious to the consumer and environment alike, assuming more people will simply dispose of items rather than repairing them.<p>Of course it could give rise to disrupters who don't use these practices and win market share over the entrenched interests.<p>To me the key thing is this: if we lose the right to repair virtually all manufacturers will include some IP that precludes independent repair. The first battleground would be auto makers. Prepare to pay a lot more.
The real problem is that to the average consumer, an electronic device is nothing more than a black box. There is zero chance of them ever being able to repair it, so they have no interest in whether or not it is repairable... Until the battery fails just after the warranty period is up.<p>I wish people would vote with their feet, but maybe there needs to be some kind of regulation since companies can't be trusted to play nice.
It would be nice to even actually own some of what you're repairing. Can you resell your itunes purchases? I guess that battle is assumed lost, so we can beg for the right to repair that which we use to consume what media we do not own and can't resell.
we shall, as a society, realise that software is some cross between literacy and legislation and that the right to read (and write back) software that affects us is fundamental to the good operation of society, and we will advance together.<p>Or we won't and we will end up like North Korea, pretending reality is somewhere it's not.<p>Nature is not going to care if we don't board the clue train.
A lot of issues surrounding the move to make anything and everything a "Service" are starting to become very clear. The issues with IoT devices being bricked, Tesla 'ownership', and so on really do need scrutiny from a functional body with a hint of the public's interest at heart.
Well, this is common sense.
Remember the "Ecce homo" painting? there are some things that will likely go wrong if you do them by yourself. Sometimes with consequences that are not desirable for "the common good".<p>This includes repairing devices that are required to be reliable for public safety.
This is carburetor nostalgia, from a time when everything was human scale and adjustable. Look at how chips are stacked and interconnected within packages in modern design[1], that trend will only intensify. Software is also getting more complex, with deep learning the system develops its own if/thens.<p>[1] <a href="http://img.koreatimes.co.kr/upload/news/070905_p10_hynix.jpg" rel="nofollow">http://img.koreatimes.co.kr/upload/news/070905_p10_hynix.jpg</a>