-> But it also takes aim at “parts pairing,” or the practice of preventing you from replacing device parts without the approval of a company or its restrictive software. Apple, which routinely uses this practice to try and monopolize repair, lobbied extensively against the Oregon bill. As usual, under the (false) claim that eliminating parts pairing would put public safety and security at risk:
-> “We remain very concerned about the risk to consumers imposed by the broad parts-pairing restrictions in this bill,” John Perry, principal secure repair architect for Apple, said at a legislative hearing last month.”
There was a time when interpreting the “risk to consumers” as a risk of being prevented from gouging consumers would be cynical. Now I guess something like that occurred to the lawyers.
There’s a lot about right to repair that’s important. One thing I’m curious about is how “certified” correlates with “how we want you to fix it”
Apples approach has often been at a module level: replace the logic board, replace the battery, etc. Board repair houses often operate at the component level: replace a damaged chip.
In the case of the latter, access to schematics and board layout makes this possible, and I’m sure Apple (and everyone else) has zero interest in making these available. Likewise with custom parts. Modules, but not chips.
Most of the talk seems to be around Apple, which makes sense since they were opponents of the bill but I am more interested to see how this affects game console manufacturers. I had a longer post I had typed out about how console manufacturers have prevented non-authorized peripherals in the past with parts pairing and I was curious how that would affect the consoles going forward. I re-read the parts pairing section to make sure I read it correctly and then stumbled upon the section that refers to what the parts pairing restriction does not apply to and it is clearly written out that it does not apply to video game consoles. I find it very interesting that this applies to smart phones but not to video game consoles at all.
Maybe I read too much philosophy, but why doesnt anyone see that when Apple lobbies the government they are doing something measurably immoral(If you subscribe to ethical institution).
Neurotransmitters signaling pain happen throughout our human population with these anti-consumer acts.
What I can't understand is: If a single human lobbied the government for a selfish cause, they would be an a-hole. Why is this different?
I'm all for an equal playing field, lets all go Realpolitik, everyone goes amoral. I just find it odd and a bit frustrating that corporations can commit immoral acts but humans cannot. I imagine this causes inequality.
Letting owners repair their own devices is great and should align well with existing warranties for tech stuff.
The other day, a volume button on my bluetooth speaker stopped working and I could tell it was damaged so I opened it up and found the circuit board supporting the button was snapped. When I initially approached the manufacturer for a warranty, they declined because they assumed I had taken the device to a non-approved repair shop, which would void the warranty. When I explained, no I'm the owner (here's the receipt), and I opened it up to check for damage, then they fulfilled the warranty no problem.
So next phone is going to be a FairPhone. Some companies are playing the game, vote with your wallet.
I replaced my iphone 8 screen and battery at a third party repair service.
What is great is that the repair was done in front of me while I waited. I didn't have to upgrade my OS or backup my data (though I did).
It was fast and inexpensive.
But... The automatic screen brightness no longer works. I have to manually adjust the brightness (which is sometimes challenging with dim screen in bright sunlight)
I think the ambient light sensor must be calibrated, and only by apple.
wonder if it can be fixed in oregon?
I don’t think bills like this will matter in several years for phones, unless they somehow start forcing manufacturers to design for manual repair. The end game for all these manufacturers is a phone assembled, repaired, and disassembled for recycling entirely by machine. I believe they already do this for the recycling.
I support right to repair in general, and I’m not particularly opposed to this bill, but it seems a bit hopeless in the long run.
[dupe]
Some more discussion last week: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39606952
Recently bought a Framework laptop - their mission is easily repairable diy hardware with good software (Linux!) support.
Still using an iPhone though - it is a bit crazy how expensive these have gotten and how repairs can be so expensive.
consider this, if Apple makes you sign a form that when buying this iPhone, you have no right to repair it on your own or take it to a non authorized repair shop. You must go to Apple to get those repairs. How many consumers do you think would sign this? I reckon a good large majority, at least the number of people buying Apple care now would buy this. This is what kills right to repair, Apple and similar companies obviously lobby against it, but that’s not what kills Right to repair, the fact is regardless of the number of laws passed to support right to repair, until a majority of consumers are willing to repair stuff on their own or with third party repair-ers, right to repair will only matter to the small minority of people who care about it.
What happens if a company refuses to sell in Oregon, can they skirt the law?
Until recently you couldn’t pump your own gas in Oregon
I need to bug my neighbor about why he voted no.
I think it’s hilarious that a lot of people here talk about the bureaucracy in Europe and then immediately switch to specific state laws regulating technology for one state.
Apple behaviour has invoked the "pause button" on my purchasing of new hardware from them.
Nobody wants to build on your platform if you're a tyrant.
Easy solution. Just stop selling new devices in Oregon.
The text of this law is here [1]. The formatting is ridiculously bad, which makes it extremely hard to read: Subsections within subsections within subsections with approximately zero indentation.
Anyway, as far as I can tell, this law defines an independent repair provider as someone with a valid and unexpired certification demonstrating that they have the “technical capabilities and competence necessary to safely, securely and reliably repair consumer electronic equipment” and that the manufacturer is allowed to decide which certifications they trust.
Without these certifications, you are not an independent repair provider and manufacturers can refuse to allow you to do anything. You can be just an average person repairing your own device, in which case the manufacturer must work with you. But you can expect to be forced to prove that you own the device before that happens.
[1] https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2024R1/Downloads/Meas...