Right to Repair Deep Dive!
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 8 พ.ค. 2024
- Marques and Andrew take to Waveform to dive a bit deeper into the topic and discuss how Right to Repair is affecting both consumers and companies. The conversation explores the many complexities of the topic, including how several regions are handling it differently.
00:00 Intro
01:07 How the Right to Repair came to be
06:19 John Deere tractors
15:57 Tesla talk (of course)
22:21 Fairphone and modular phones
30:00 Printers and the Truckla
40:51 France and the repairability scores
48:11 Will consumers care?
57:18 Conclusion
Links:
Subscribe to the pod & share with friends: bit.ly/WaveformMKBHD
Subscribe to the pod on TH-cam: bit.ly/WVFRMPodcastTH-cam
/ wvfrm
/ mkbhd
/ andymanganelli
/ adamlukas17
/ wvfrmpodcast
shop.mkbhd.com
Music by KamrenB: spoti.fi/2WRJOFh
MKBHD Right to Repair: bit.ly/3hHyYNi
Simone Giertz Truckla video: bit.ly/341rWLk
iFixit: www.ifixit.com/
Exactly like Louis said, things with more complex and smaller technologies don't mean they are unrepairable by someone else. It is okay to design new products with more integrated technologies. It is up to the repairman to figure out how to repair it. The manufacturers are basically just confounding right to repair issues with so-called innovations. It is insane manufacturers intentionally disable products in firmware/software where parts are changed by users.
Blowmymind
Vincent,
Flickr
Loucuse
Lactose
Currently ~20min, but it seems like there is still a lack of understanding of right to repair. Right to repair is in no way a detriment to how technology moves forward. Yes things are getting more advanced and integrated. But right to repair is simply wanting the ability to purchase replacement parts that aren't artificially marked up in price. It's not the manufactures concern how difficult it is to replace a part by a 3rd party. The guise of worrying about safety is an easy cover to continue making loads of money.
artificially marked up in price is definitely a key here for me. I'm no expert, but just a cursory look at how to repair my old iPhone 6s's REALLY banged up, but working screen, as well as getting a new battery in it, through an official apple channel or an authorized apple repairer is LAUGHABLE. Just completely a bizarro world of pricing.
More parts to replace..
you're focusing on the wrong questions - yes, there are legitimate reasons stuff can be hard to fix and a difficult balance between repairability and innovation/benefits. What RTR is about is where companies deliberately and needlessly (selfishly) make things difficult to repair only to drive more income. planned obsolescence, removing repair competition allowing prices to go up, getting people into the apple store so they can upsell.
You missed the point with more advanced integrated tech and 2nm CPUs. We will not be repairing these, and we're fully aware we can't get inside them with tools. We don't want to fix 2nm CPU in your laptop, we want to be able to buy the keyboard, battery, or screen, so you don't have to throw the perfectly fine 2nm CPU away. There are things that are not worth repairing due to cost/availability of parts/tools, and there are things that are and save you a ton of money while letting you get your data back (which authorised repair often won't give you). All we need is them not artificially force things that could be easily repaired to be e-waste, by explicitly threatening the manufacturers of parts with legal action if they sell the parts to us. If you don't want to fix your product, at least don't artificially prevent others from doing so when they are clearly better at repairing than you and can make it profitable.
Hell, if its a 2nm chip, then it can also be replaced if that's the only faulty thing on the device. It isn't like it'd be absolutely impossible to replace the chip. People replace CPU's in various devices now. www.eweek.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/IBM-Worldu2019s-First-2-Nanometer-Chip.jpg This is an image from an article and video of the new 2nm chip, unless I'm mistaken. It isn't so small that it'd be impossible to replace. Repair? Sure, but replace? No.
The 2nm CPU thing was just a straw man argument from that guy.
CPUs don't really break. They're just silicon and metal, there's nothing delicate that could break, and they can last 25 years. We're actually concerned about lithium ion batteries and SSDs, which significantly degrade over time and last 2-5 years under normal conditions and take the rest of the device with them when they die.
PREACH
@@PiousSlayer Absolutely, I'm sure the chip is still BGA. Those can be replaced. People do this successfully everyday. The real problem is the way manufacturers key the chips together on the board. Even with an OEM replacement the rest of the chips won't accept it, because it has the wrong code. It should be perfectly functional, but there is only one arrangement of chips in the world that will allow the device to work. So in many (most?) devices now it is possible to replace the CPU, but basically pointless to do it. And I've never heard a manufacturer give a good reason for keying the chips together. How are practices like this innovation?
It’s amazing how quickly these hour+ long podcasts just fly by. I enjoy how much Marques, Andrew, and David all love tech. These feel like conversations that would be happening between them even without a podcast, but we get to listen in.
Exactly why we created the podcast!
Transistor size has nothing to do with repairability. No one has repaired an individual transistor in these chips. Individual transistors are cheap to manufacture, and when we talk about repairing a product, we usually talk about replacing some basic component. (Transistor is not a basic component, a typical chip consists of billions of transistors, no one goes and replaces them one at a time.)
What the R2R advocates want, is the permission to buy these basic components, so damaged ones can be replaced.
It is surprising how stupid tech reviewers are on tech topic
He literally talks about this on his video about it... Which he says...
@@mad3st Classic case of over thinking it!
You are bang on. 1 of Louis Rossman's bug bears is the software lock attached to the power button on iPhones preventing a simple repair.
And it is really a misleading argument that when a well "integrated" 2nm chip product breaks down, repairman are not able to repair it. There are always chips that are surrounding that 2nm chip, for power regulation, for camera sensor, for speaker, etc. No one is talking about digging into that 2nm chip to repair it. It is about fixing that power rectifier chip or a mosfet or a usb-c port etc.
Or even the ability to purchase a new motherboard with a new chip on it
Seriously!!! It's ridiculous to suggest these types of things. You replace a PART, you don't get out your atomic force microscope you have in your backyard laboratory and try and fix the parts of the nanoscale structure that have broken down. Sheesh! It's such a horrible straw man argument.
honestly common sense ., how are they confused? error codes? people will learn them. the machine will run over a barrel?? dude the simplest command is stop. no avoidance technology? wtf. if they hurt themselves it’s not their problem people will understand this and john dear won’t lose business. no . people will understand that a person messed up. this is bs? or i’m stupid i’m high for sure
I personally think this conversation derailed from the main point of right to repair. Whilst the conversation did touch on points many people will consider when arguing the whys and whats for right to repair the main aspect still remains most important and that is right to repair is not here to harm innovation, it is to enable you, as the user to have that choice to repair your property should you want or need to do that without losing the ability to use that said product or risk losing data or even being persecuted. It's a very simple argument. You don't want to repair it yourself then don't. You prefer to buy a replacement then do that. Basically give me the choice to decide what I want to do. And I guarantee that most people would make an informed decision even with high power electronics or complex systems. However, people with the knowledge like me (robotics engineer here) would like to be able to solve a stupid screen replacement or even battery replacement without losing the ability to use our devices. I don't see how that hurts innovation. If a nee product comes along and it's better than the one before and there's a cost-benefit to it then I'd get the new product. To me this is a very simple discussion, even from the point of view of a product designer and prototyper (again, here I am)
Ex
E
I feel like you are saying that right to repair would slow down progress but that isn't what we want. We just want the ability to buy the parts to fix our stuff, or in the case of John Deere, the software to at least diagnose your own equipment. For instance if your car has a warning light on you can buy an OBDII sensor and it will tell you what that code means. John Deere won't allow farmers to have the software they need to do that to equipment they paid for. Given them that software wouldn't slow down technological progress. Stopping Apple from telling chip manufacturers that they can't sell these specific chips to consumers or repair shops wouldn't slow down progress either and I feel like that was missed in this episode.
This is exactly the comment I came to make. Thanks.
I believe that the whole podcast completely missed the point of right to repair.
Thanks for having me! Super happy to be a part of this conversation - it’s paramount to the long term success of humanity, and will continue to become way bigger than any of us could’ve imagined.
I dont expect to repair everything i own personally, but in the future if my electric car were to break down i want the option to go to Dave's garage because he has the skill to fix it instead for £150 instead of paying £350 to the manufacturer or a "licensed" dealer. Give the people with the skills the option to repair your stuff without having to pay you a premium for the right to get the part.
I'll play devil's advocate in this scenario. How would you know if he has the skill to fix a Tesla? Would it be based on his claims, because I doubt anyone will turn down a customer. An electric drive train is much different than an ICE drive train so its not like asking an android repair guy to fix an iPhone. Tesla probably has people get licensed to work on their cars so they can actually do it correctly and therefore not have to worry of any bad PR from shotty work done by a random mechanic.
@@jatinkulkarni2428 as things stand now its hard or next to impossible to find a random garage with the skill. Just like with phones the more of them there are the more motivated independent people will be to pick up the skills. In 5-10 years when electric cars are more common, one crashing or breaking down wont be news.
The same scenario can be put forward for current ICE engines, when they started out it was new and only a handful of people could fix them. Now the options are endless, the same will happen with electric and i dont want a future where a software/hardware barrier is put on to force me to go back to them and pay more than the service is actually worth.
@@jatinkulkarni2428 Dave's reputation, and my past experience, like for anything else.
@@kudaa8969 I was thinking near future, but definitely in the future I would want any garage to fix any car.
Yo I really appreciate the video podcast format, especially as someone whom primarily consumes his content through TH-cam
Idgap
Boosted Boards episode was so good. would make a good documentary
Yes that would
Well I think technically it was a documentary, but it was an audio-only documentary.
I don't know... I feel like Right to Repare is as simples as "Right to buy parts of something you do own". It's nothing like holding technology progress or anything... Just stop big companies from having the repair monopoly.
This.
Majority of the discussion was completely derailed by Marques' premise of "better products with more integrated technology". I think he completely missed the point of Louis' reply, and I understand that it's easy to get lost on the tangents (since it is linked to several topics and issues). Louis already mentioned that it was the third-party's problem to figure out how to repair them. It's the effort of companies to prevent people from repairing/modifying the products they bought that's the problem.
Just don't block them from getting legitimate parts. Just don't prevent them from using other legitimate parts via serialization. Especially when the company itself is unable to fix their own products.
But their discussion did get one reason right: it's basically companies avoiding bad PR.
@@JyuzouNT Not to mention the fact that "more integrated technology" doesn't hurt repairability! People talk about highly optimized or integrated systems like they're some sort of "magic" that let highly precise machining come together to make innovation happen. But the reality is that systems that have this level of integration are often capable (or can be easily modified to be) of self-calibration. There are companies that will let you order hot-swappable parts that will self-calibrate as they install themselves! Furthermore, this goes beyond companies avoiding bad PR. Apple will lie to you about their poor engineering decisions and CHARGE YOU to repair THEIR MISTAKES simply because it makes them look better. They've crossed the line of PR into the realm of illegal behavior that no one calls them out on.
@@andrewcopple7075, I like that you pointed out how technology is treated these days as magic, and I totally agree. Just a few years ago, people are able to tinker with their stuff and repair it on their own with no issues. But these days, it's just something that you have to send to the shop. It's the kind of mentality that's been slowly fed to consumers until it's became the norm.
I also briefly mentioned that the topic is quite complex, in the sense that it is related to multiple topics and excuses; bad PR is just one of them. To name another one, right-to-repair is also related to another issue: planned obsolescence, which ties in to one of the examples you've mentioned. A mistake by companies like Apple at face value, but if you watch Louis Rossman's vids, anyone would argue that it's completely intentional.
The way Marques looks into the problem is a bit skewed, I feel. I guess his experience in the tech world made his vision of the topic too complex. His original premise and the other ways of him looking into the topic, to be fair, is neutral, as it tries to understand the point of view from both parties, but is also misleading.
Let's keep it simple.
And that's why I like Paulo's comment so much, since it keeps it simple. It's not about people blocking companies from progressing their tech (if anything, it's about companies trying to suppress their IPs). Right-to-repair is about companies trying to block people from fixing devices that they own. No need to lump in "integrated technology" in there, which I feel becomes a red herring to the conversation.
@@JyuzouNT I totally agree with you. I begin to listen to Marques from the beginning of his channel and i think he is deeply influenced by the new way things are made it. It's a generational thing.
Then i found Rossman's videos and wow i think "he is so clever" but companies don't like it. In fact this is the same discussion when free software begin to go mainstream and many compare to a communist vision. Stallman has to go out so many times to clarify about term and avoid the political issue but in the end, free software is a political movement deeply affecting the way companies conduct businesses.
Right to repair can not make the minimal damage that is making cryptocurrency to the computer market in compare. But when Elon Musk irresponsibly tweet about the subject no one criticize how his influence can alter the behavior of the market because a lot of people admire him.
Marques is a big influencer in the community and i think his opinions can have a big impact in the consumers. I not say he is PR for companies but i think he begin to change from his beginnings. Because i don't agree with many of his new assumptions, I unsubscribe to his channel and i advice many of my college in my country to make the same.
@@pubdigitalix, I didn't get one of your examples for cryptocurrency regarding "damages" compared to the right-to-repair movement, tho I think your main point is how Marques is affecting how viewers interpret the conversation, and I agree as well.
Right now, I'm not certain if Louis would consider his participation in the discussion more of a benefit due to rabbit holes Marques included in the discussion, which is confusing and misleading imo. Does it outweight the benefits of potentially having the word out to a bigger audience if the same audience has a skewed POV of the movement? His discussions will play a major part; he is for sure one of the top (if not the top) Tech TH-camrs right now and will be guaranteed to have a huge influence to other people.
There could be (and probably is) some level of conflict of interest involved here, but I think that Marques was doing his best to be as neutral as possible. He's been neutral throughout all of his topics so far, though not going so far as to scare off device manufacturers. I can also relate to their discussion somehow; they obviously don't have enough knowledge about right-to-repair. I've been watching Louis for a LONG time and you really can't condense his involvement in the movement within 1 hr. It's also one of his challenges when introducing spreading the movement to other people because of misinformation.
It's frustrating to watch the 3 of them process the information on their own. I understand that they did some research, but the topic got so out of hand. What I think would be best is to have Louis on the show to discuss the movement with them, rather than them speculating on stuff and going off course somewhere related but misses the point entirely.
I understand Marques's point that more integrated units will be harder to fix, but it's not about that. I believe that devices will still have some level of modularity in the future. And if ever it doesn't, it still isn't about that. It's about companies not wanting people to mess with the stuff that they bought.
They should have a redo.
Love the investigative journalism angle Waveform is taking! More please! Two important items for follow-up on right-to-repair:
1) Maintenance/service contracts are a huge profit motive for companies like John Deere or Apple - their service departments are direct competitors to DIY and 3rd party repair shops. This is a huge unfair advantage that they design into their products by keeping parts, schematics, and diagnostic tools off limits to 3rd parties. It locks people into paying top dollar for 1st party repair because 3rd party repair options are intentionally limited.
2) Repairability of products from a design perspective is a separate consumer choice issue from right to repair as a policy. No one in right to repair is advocating for changes in design. They are simply asking for a level playing field when if comes to the items at issue in #1.
I think one of the issues in this conversation is that there seems to be an assumption that only the manufacture has the skills to fix the newer more complicated technology. But I think one of the points of right to repair is that if they weren’t so protective of their parts and tools people would be able to fix even their more complicated technology. People can learn to fix even the most complicated technology because people figured out how to make it initially. These big companies are preventing people from learning how to do it, holding monopoly then and saying Other people can’t repair it because they don’t know how meanwhile they are preventing people from learning how. Another issue for example with John Deere and with Apple is that they prevent people from accessing software needed to make changes, for example Apple software locking batteries and home buttons to devices so that they don’t work if they’re replace. This stuff is getting more complicated, but I think there are lots of people that would be eager to learn and offer their services to help people make their devices last longer and reduce e-waste, but these companies are preventing them from accessing the parts and software, to maintain their monopoly on the repair business and extend their profits after the product has been sold. On the other hand, I see that these companies would want to prevent liability. You can see with brands like Tesla who take heat when owners use their cars improperly, like when they use auto pilot from the backseat, I think these things strengthen the company’s position on anti-repair. They’ll say if we let people do what ever they want to our products, and it goes wrong, it’ll blow back on us and our brand.
Yes! I can't get enough of this topic!
Please do one with Louis Rossmann and some other tech TH-camrs!
I concur with this statement.
Also, some big non-American tech youtubers so this right-to-repair goes worldwide. Because think about how many people will have to send their devices to Apple to america to get it fixed. It will be a huge pain, not to mention tractor parts that need to be fixed. The farmers worldwide needing to send parts to far away spots to be fixed by official repairmen certified by the corporation? That sounds like a massive headache compared to repair yourself.
@@dertythegrower geekyranjit is trying to address it in India, absolutely need this.
You guys rock, thanks for doing this one @MKBHD. Big respect.
Great discussion - have been listening on Google podcasts for a while, but good to see it in video form.
And welcome David! Glad to hear an additional perspective in these conversations.
Every software company should play this podcast in working environment, because I find that it keeps me focused and awake when I'm coding. Big fan from Ethiopia. Keep it up.
I just love watching Waveform while cooking, feels like a true multitasking and the best thing is, that I learn something at the same time.
Got assignment to do this weekend so this will be perfect to listen to 👍
Thoroughly interesting topics you guys discussed on the podcast. Watched to the very end all the while your discussions kept me intrigued as I love everything tech. Will be tuning in every week for sure. Looking forward to the next one!
Loved this format! The clips of Louis and other interviews added a lot of depth and trust!
Companies innovating new and more integrated technology isn't mutually exclusive to right to repair. We don't want companies to stop innovating them. We just want them to not lock their schematics, as well as prevent them from being a monopsony.
its been said by other viewers but it is a mark of how good this podcast is that its almost an hour long but never feels like it.
loved the new round table format, great conversation.
This was a fascinating video and discussion. I think it would have been interesting to hear from farmers who had been affected by this as well and get some of that perspective from them directly.
Wow this episode was simply amazing!
Honestly learnt alot from this one! Good work Marques, Andy and Adam :)
(PS: Loved the different format)
POV: you have been told you are a very smooth person.
😎
Really like the podcast and must say I very much enjoy the video format 👍
Will the video be available on Spotify in the future?
Keep up the good work! 👊
Amazing podcast 🔥🔥
Lots of respect for you to cover it!
this was very well done to me. Plus we get a lot of good information
One issue to consider is that if companies are forced to (legally or by popular demand) make things more repairable, it might also make them more recyclable. Sure tighter integration may make things better and less repairable/recyclable, but as always going completely to one side of a trade off is a very bad idea.
I agree with that TH-cam comment Marques mentioned. Aftermarket parts are so common in cars. If done poorly, the body kit could fall off and hurt the car, its passengers and other people on the road but it is completely legal. That's the same as replacing the battery on your phone or fixing your tractor.
Companies need to trust that consumers care for their own safety. That is the premise of all law and society. If you don't care about your own safety/life then going on a killing spree has no repercussions for you. If you don't care about a death sentence or imprisonment then you can do whatever you want.
The liability thing doesn't make sense either. Are companies liable for all batteries that explode even if it was installed by them? No. It depends on the conditions of use. If the customer misused the device, the company is not liable. Similarly, if the battery explodes and it can be proved that it was customer error during replacement, then the company is not at fault.
Love the format
I had to come check out the video after last podcast where you discussed people not thinking Andrew looked like that. I have to say, I too am surprised. I don't have an exact picture in mind but I will say I pictured smaller and nerdier. I was not expecting to see the 9th man on a D2 Midwest college basketball team. You know one of those guys that never plays but spins a towel above their head whenever a team mate makes a 3 pointer.
I'm going to print this comment and hang it in my office.
@@Manganellia1 @Mitch Swartout OMG I‘m dying, the comment and the printer hurting xDD
There's a difference between good and great tech.
Good tech will improve and become more integrated and efficient over time - that's to be expected.
Great tech will do that AND preserve consumer's rights to repair as owners of the property they bought.
Truly thoughtful design can enable both, but it's much harder, and requires conscious effort throughout the design stages
I love the video quality. I'm curious to know how long does it take to edit these videos compared to editing the audio only
Really liked this episode!
Great discussion and insights man. A discussion & topic that is the need of the hour!
Ultimately, i think it boils down to people and companies taking a stance that "tech needs to get better AND be repairable to a great extent" . It needs to be an AND approach instead of it being an EITHER/OR approach. For instance, for any business today and going forward, being "ethical" and "giving back to the community" and "have humane work conditions" or "respectable minimum wage" needs to be a MUST and not an option or after thought.
The issue lies with the willingness of these companies to actually innovate in tech from an approach of being able to solve to make things repairable rather than focus on just making the tech and then figuring out if it can be made repairable or not. It needs to become a NECESSITY rather than an OPTION and only then will we see technology not only advance and get optimized and all that, but also be made in a way that individual or compounded parts can be repaired. And legislations need to be put in place to actually incentivize companies making eco-conscious and repairable products, whereas products that are not repairable or that don't provide ease of repair should be taxed higher (post sales tax based on volume of product sold) as a deterrent to ensure these companies will have to drain profits if they continue to make products that pollute the environment.
Also, these replacement parts and repair parts can't cost half of the p[rice of the device itself. That marked up pricing to push people to get a new product is also something which needs to be addressed. Sure, mark up an individual component 5-10% above the large inventory price that you as a company buy it at, but you can't mark it up to cost an arm and a limb!
Would have loved the conversation to touch on End Of Life products as well. It's hard enough getting parts for current products and doing repairs when the systems lock you out etc, when they reach thier EoL it's will be even more difficult to maintain or repair the product that you bought and own and the manufacturer doesn't even support.
The conclusion is spot-on: Product is the king!
Missed major right to repair topic: Massachusetts law. Original MA right to repair I believe is the reason lots of parts are available to consumers. The right to repair 2.0 / digital Right to repair passed in 2020 and is coming into effect in coming years - something like all the digital data a car company has access to had to be available to consumers and repair shops easily.
😍love these shows
First David full episode!
So cool
Sound and video sooo clean. I guess that's to be expected.
The production values in the video podcast are great! Do you use a RED to shoot the video version of the podcast?
They use the C500s!
@@MaxBalzer That’s a great camera to be fair
Great conversation! Next time when you talk about Right to Repair have Rich Rebuilds on there. I would love to see him in a conversation about that topic.
Listening on some DT 770 PRO's and damn, that intro sequence sounds mighty good! 🙌
Been thinking of grabbing myself a pair lol
It would be great if you included chapters also in the audio only version!
Comes down to the quality, price and a bit about the brand whether I get the product. I would really love to be able to use it as long as possible. How can you not want RTR...
23:15 there is example with construction tools. Hilti offers their tools as a "service" or with lifetime warranty. They either fix it or give you a new tool. I heard they are very repairable, but they tend to be heavier at least from my experience.
Actually, countries in Asia have third-party repair stores all around. People also usually go to these places to repair their screens and internals instead of sending them to the original store because they are cheaper. One thing that I think influences this is also because a lot of countries can get their parts from China (where most smartphone companies have factories).
I think additional to the price, also the time you would like to have the thing affects. It is not the same situation for someone that changes phones every year than for someone that keeps his/her phone for 4 years
I 100% think that technology should advance even if it means that it's harder to repair. My only problem is when companies make things unnecessarily difficult to repair (e.g. gluing phone batteries to the frame instead of using pull tabs).
I’m a fan of the current conversational format.
Interesting 2 of them use computers
Marques : what's a computer?
lol
Yeah what is a computer
The music though 🔥
I work at a phone repair shop. Samsung is proof that selling parts to any 3rd party repair shops scales up. We use service center parts for all Samsung screens, batteries and back covers.
It's better for us because we know we can trust the quality of the part and can get parts sooner after the release of the phone.
i am obsessed with the edits on the video version lmao
I feel like there's something wrong with David's neck; he's almost got the Shaft head tilt going on. 😂 Good episode. I'd like to know if the repair sticker is on the box only, or on the display. On the box only really won't make too much of a difference.
I think the john deer problem isn't error codes, the software as a whole gets outdated and you can't get updates anymore, and you said it's automated, so it becomes useless without software.
Nice podcast.✌️
Fairphone + project mainline would be an interesting thing. If they started off with slightly more powerful, 'future-proof' specs, or if they figured out some way to actually upgrade the phone's processor, (which would obviously have to be done in store) using the same phone for seven years would be awesome.
You can't make future proof specs in an environment in which transistor counts double every few years.
Great episode
55:51 Case, New Holland, Ford, Claas, Fendt, Valtra, Challenger, Massey Ferguson. For your info, 1st autonomous vehicles appeared in farming as the environment is controlled better than open-world traffic.
Loosing an entire crop because the dealership won't sell you a part is the issue with deer
Not to mention that your options for that part are Deere or Deere.
The right to repair law is not about preventing densely integrated solutions, like merging CPU+MEM+FLASH+SMC into one single 2nm IC. Nothing about right to repair would try to stop products becoming more integrated. This would arguable be good for device longevity because IC's usually do not fail. It's usually interconnects between ICs that develop problems. Liquid damage being the main issue.
Just a random thought about the trade-off between repair-ability, durability and costs:
If something is easy to repair, but breaks 20/100 times, it means 20 consumers paying a little bit to fix it. Seems fine.
If it's impossible but incredibly durable, it means that it might break 1/100 times, but it also means 1 costumer having a huge cost in buying a new one. In other words, it's as if the costs of repair were being focused on the ones unlucky enough to be the rare cases of breaking in the almost-indestructible devices.
What do we rather have: the so-so change of having to pay a small amount to make a quick fix, or the small chance to need to buy a new one?
edit: sorry if anyone has already made this kind of comment or if this was mentioned in the video (not until the point I've seen it at least).
Currently 20 mins in. There are many things which I'm not completely clicking with here, but don't want to say anything until I watch the whole thing.
However, I do think a very important peice of the puzzle for right to repair has been overlooked thus far in their discussion...price....
If your career is all about producing tech content, you'll naturally have more access to the fastest and best developments in technology. From that vantage point, the 'better integrated' tech is the thing to strive for.
But it's important to remember that for the vast majority of us, a phone is something we get once, and need to it last for at least a couple of years.
If that screen cracks, and our only option is to pay $500 to get it fixed from Apple, or buy a new phone entirely, well odds are that we'll have to deal with the broken phone for a while.
I think it's really important to remeber this part of the conversation before getting lost into the depths of innovation vs limitation.
People are forced to shell out money that they don't have, while being told that it's for their own good, and being overcharged massively for the repair.
I think the point about only buying the better product is subjective, I am more willing to buy a product with worse features if it's repairable but I literally can't, and I find it interesting because how repairable it is and how open the eco system is my main reason for considering apple products to be bad products, everything else about them seems great and if they changed that I might actually considering buying them.
A rational reason for many users to buy Apple products was productivity. I have been in mixed PC/Apple Mac environments and have seen cheap PCs fail, while the Macs would soldier on for many years without a hitch. Where time is money that's actually a very valid concern and buying a slightly more expensive Apple design will, over the long run, very often returns its money. Now, mind you, this is a statement about older iMacs, I have heard that MacBook users are not always having such a positive experience lately, so one has to decide on a case by case basis. I consider phones as throw-away hardware anyway. They age out and that's how one should treat them after three or four years.
20:17 the thing is, what about Batterie replacements? Are they also part of right to repair (i mean car batteries)
15:55 Why was that really good point ignored?
A highly complex and delicate device is in no way at odds with the right to repair. The companies using that line of argument are being disingenuous. Right to repair is essentially about pushing back at PUNITIVE actions companies take towards third parties in the repair space. It's simply anti-competitive behavior at its core. If it's not economical for a third party to perform certain repairs, the market will sort that out quickly.
Don't farmers usually have an extra reserve tractor or whatever in case one is down they can use the extra one until the main one gets fixed?
Being well integrated is one aspect of upgradability- which you spoke of. The other, more controversial and real aspect is companies deliberately denying upgradability. For example- non replaceable SSDs, proprietary motherboards, proprietary ports, proprietary screws (non philips) as seen in MacBooks; headphone jacks, replaceable batteries, sd card slots.
I didn't really care for the arguments that tech is too complicated for people to repair. People have a genuine desire to know how stuff works and to also fix their own items, just look at the popularity of repair channels and companies like iFixit. If a repairman wants to make money, he will learn new skills and acquire new tools to better serve his customers. And I should have the choice of shopping around to find the best service for my needs and budget.
This channel will hit 100k before june 1st.
I think cars are a great topic to discuss right to repair. Because going back to the Tesla example you can be the world's best and safest driver and you will almost never need to repair something everypart will last forever. But with cars someone can always hit you or sideswipe you and that 2 or 3 months for a repair
David was pretty good addition in the conversation! Have him around more often
The right to repair is not about forcing companies to design devices to be repairable.
It is about stopping companies from going out-of-their-way to make repair difficult in order to 'end-of-life' old devices so they can sell new devices.
The goal of right to repair is to
- Stop companies blocking access to parts.
- Stop companies blocking access to repair data, eg assembly diagrams, schematics and boardviews. (No access to secret company data is needed here. You could use a multimeter to measure any device and create your own schematic and boardview but it would take so long that it's not economical to do so).
- Remove the monopoly the manufacturers have created that makes themselves the only one who can repair their products. They have a serious conflict of interest here since repair is bad for business when a new device could be sold instead.
- Protect the users right to have fair choices for repair.
There's an obscure German manufacturer called "Shift phones" that is trying to produce more capable phones with the same modularity, they are beginning to ship one with Snapdragon 845 and are supposedly working on another one with 888. The upfront cost isn't justified by the ability to repair, though.
FOR REAL, Andrew’s voice is identical to a TH-cam called Scott Cramer. If you have never heard of him he does commentary. Just look it up it’s INSANE. Plz like this so Marques and Andrew will see this
The crisp sound works when consumed as a Audio only format, but with this video version I reckon you guys have to add some ambient sounds. It sounds so dead. Leave the room noise or add something in the background in post!
At the end you asked what can you guys do to improve the podcast. My two cents. Chapter markers!
More or less,
I try to know about the common issues of the Product before I get it...This also Sets my expectation of Durability, Pausable Fixes & Lifetime of the Device
*For* *Ex* - I got into the rabbit hole of Mouse, due to seeing the same issues crop up at mouse review on Amazon Depending on User ~5 months or in a couple of Years.
I.e., _Double Click_ and _Drag_ failure of Mouse due to "primarily" failure of Micro Switches (Mouse Buttons)
+ In essence, Circuitry being built upon old standards, instead of designing a new one for present Requirement of the market from the ground up Etc..,
I ended up getting a wired ASUS Mouse that has Hot-Swappable Micro Switch Socket - so that I can avoid soldering circuit.
*I didn't Buy wireless because I do not know if they "programme"/"how good" the battery management is.
So that it can avoid constant overcharging (+85%) of the battery
This will cause the Battery to lose Capacity due to the formation of Lithium Ion Dendrites,
also, I was not sure if I can get the Battery with the same specification in the case when I do have to change.
for my use case, I decided I can settle for wired...for now.
*My 2015 HP Laptop has good-for-nothing Battery Management, Where a new battery will die within 4-12 Months since most of the time it's plugged on the wall so it's mostly ~100% Charged thus dies faster. So I gave up on Replacing its Battery, now It's just like a Desktop.
The new laptops have better battery management I guess, you can limit the battery to ~70% when you know it is going to plug in for long period etc..,(Personally seen on ASUS, Lenevo... I have "not" looked up on other brands solutions though)
Just my 2 cents about the John deere and tesla's parts: as a motorsports guy i can totally understand tesla for "punishing" people who heavily mess with their cars, like Simone's truckla.
If you drop your phone from a height it will shatter but unless it falls on someone's head nothing would really happen, meanwhile in cars the chassis is designed to act or react in specific ways in specific situations, for example the front of the car is designed to crunch on impact to disperse all the energy before it reaches the occupants of the vehicle, the roof and sides are designed to crunch a little bit but they should keep enough shape to let the doors open. Agencies that certificate car's safety features have all kind of tests, i remember the new Mercedes SL had to go through a test where they flipped the car on it's roof, literally blew the gullwings' hinges with a small charge and tested how easily the doors would let the occupants out of the car, so i understand tesla's attitude: Simone obviously isn't stupid, but what happens if someone less quaified did the same truck conversion, then get involved in a rollover and the poorly made structural modifications turn them into human pancakes? Same with john deere: i wouldn't let people fix very sensitive parts without qualifications and face the risk of having a tractor losing one or more safety features, making it plow into a nearby farm. Mechanical stuff is easy and should be fixed by the owner, specific or extremely sensitive reparis should be handled by qualified techicians
i 100% agree with the RTR movement though: if i own something i have the right to keep it functional as long as i want or possible and if it's needed i want to be able to bring it to a local repair shop down the street or even attempt the repair myself, thus giving me access to a legallly bought genuine replace part at a normal price.
My mams getting the new iPad pro it looks amazing thanks for the revieq
A topic of conversation: the score different iphone models would most likely get and if that would make people buy the one with the higher score and in doing so forcing Apple to be more willing to make phones easier to repair to get a higher score on newer models in order to sell more of them.
5:04 If there's an issue with the CHIP, then you could replace the CHIP and it should work normally again. It's not like it would be anything different than a normal CPU being replaced in current devices. Apple has started using "security chips" that read the serial codes of components and if you replace any of the "secured" components it can brick the device. This isn't due to a technological leap, it's to make it nearly impossible to get your device repaired outside of Apple's bubble.
Nano Sheet Design that was shown: www.eweek.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/IBM-Worldu2019s-First-2-Nanometer-Chip.jpg That isn't so tiny that it'd be impossible to replace.
Watched an ad of Skillshare with Marques in it.
*1.* Louis did a recent video discussing how cross-firm intellectual property issues might be an undisclosed factor in claims against RightToRepair.
*2. Good news:* Aptera Motors (1000-mile electric car) and Framework (the Fairphone of laptops) also seem to be pro-RTR :D
*3. Another idea:* 2nd/3rd-party Fairphone module ecosystem? Cuz then I could rebuild my phone like a PC!
i think a great counter to the john deere side is the fact that farmers are seeking out older equipment of 40+ years ago simply because of how much easier it is to repair. manuals and parts are readily available and they dont need to bypass a snowflake software that requires the grace of john deere. these farmers work on a timer and from my understanding, prioritize the ability to repair their products quickly to get back to work over the new tech of making farming more efficient. They dont want to wait months for a john deere representative to come out to their farm to put in their special key to tell them what's wrong with the equipment. They would rather lose efficiency over the possibility of being unable to work for weeks and miss their crop timings.
Glad to see I'm not the only one who found Marques's premise to be misleading. The level of integration is a completely different discussion to right-to-repair. Louis already mentioned that repair shops are willing to go through the hoops in learning how to repair a device; it's their problem. Right-to-repair deals with how companies go through extreme efforts in blocking ways third-parties can fix their devices.
Hope Marques can see this and have a follow-up to do right-to-repair justice.
Interestingly, in the firearms world, it seems parts are readily accessible for people to maintain their equipment/tech. Companies pride themselves on this inter-workability. Of course, one glaring gaps would be modifications or parts which make your personal property illegal in whichever jurisdiction.
Hey guys great video with really important points. Another thing that crossed my mind and it mainly revolves around small consumer electronics so if even in the future tech becomes more integrated and harder to repair what happens if you live in a country where there is no official repair service or official customer service of that company or if you buy it from the US for example and travel with it and something happens to it. Shouldn't you have the right to at least try to repair it yourself or seek third party help ?
What if when trying yourself, you screw it up?
The reasons these companies make against Right to Repair is wild because with all their knowledge & money. They have the ability to find other solutions to building products that'll make it more repairable & safer to repair.
I think the scoring system in France is very good, because the score can be low and not be a factor for decision initially, but it will become a competition to have the best score or at least a good one. And it starts to be an indirect pressure on the product in which people start to ask why the grade of this device is so low, why can't the company improve its grade?