If I buy an Android phone, I should be able to maintain/update the operating system.
If I buy a MacBook, I should be able to maintain or change the operating system.
If I buy a TV, smart watch, microwave - I should be able to maintain their software.
The only thing prohibiting this is the fact that drivers are obfuscated and/or hardware schematics sufficient to produce drivers are not provided.
IMO, if the EU wants any technical sovereignty, they'd address this as I don't see European companies producing a competitor to the MacBook - I do however see European companies being capable of creating a competing operating system (or Linux) to install on a MacBook, but only if Apple is compelled to allow them.
The same goes for smartphones, cars, and any digital device
It's pretty likely that manufacturers would charge handsomely for these requirements. At least at first.
You'd probably also get things like TVs with very basic software at import, with much better software available for people willing to obtain it outside the EU.
Of course you should, pal! You should not buy any proprietary shite to stop investing into even more invasive proprietary antiuseful technologies. But you use to not do that, so we both are going to experience suffering. Thank you for being the bad actor for me.
You are able to do that, just like you are able to drill out the cylinders of your brand new car. If you are skilled enough. But the manufacturer doesn't have any obligation to teach you how.
Interestingly, the number is over a span of 15 years, and is only the calculated "Growth and investment".
Other numbers are "Savings in production costs" at €15.6 billion, and "Consumer savings" at 25€ per consumer per year for an impressive total of €176.5 billion.
It also lists "Business adjustment costs" at €8.1 billion, "Business administrative costs" at just €69.8 million and "Implementation and enforcement" at €105.5 million.
I wonder why "Growth and investment" was chosed as the number to use. Maybe to keep emphasising their gist of "the EU is the future for sustainable growth"?
Also, here are the announcements by the Commission:
I would like to see small appliances inbuilt batteries (mostly Li-Ion based) be prohibted. It contributes to device obsolescence and is a security risk --> burning waste dumps.
I think this regulation that comes into effect February of next year concerns all kinds of batteries, not only those of smartphones https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL... . I think, because I didn't doublecheck right now further than reading the first matching "appliances" paragraph (ctrl-f).
What I know off the top of my head, from reading the legislation a while ago. Is that technical reasons, such as waterproof devices, will still be able to retain non user replaceable batteries if it is needed to keep the device waterproof.
> including a repair obligation for manufacturers of certain products
Unfortunately regulations often don't go far enough.
I have a ~10 year old iPad Pro in perfect working condition. I can basically do nothing with it, and increasingly it can no longer even browse the internet because Safari is so outdated on it.
The iPad is easily Apple worst product in terms of consumer friendliness. A lot of iPads shipped with way to little storage and I'd be surprised if Apple didn't know this.
The 10 year old iPad is still a perfectly capable device, but it suffers from the lack of an updated operating system and enough storage to apply a would be update. There are millions of people for whom an iPad is all the computing they'd ever need (many just use their phone as well), but the larger screen makes it a good option of online shopping, banking, emails, government documents, calendar and appointment booking. The price is reasonable, but it doesn't need to replace every three to five years to serve that purpose. Arguably I don't know how Apple would make money on it long term, but the lack of update should count against them in terms of their environmental image.
Apple is far from the worst, their phones updates for a long time, longer than most. Their laptops equally so. The iPad is very disappointing, because even if they issue an OS update, not all the devices can apply it, because of the lack of storage. Still better than my wife's old Samsung phone that was unable to apply any operating system update ever, because the storage was to limited.
Divorcing the OS from the hardware means stuff just lasts far, far longer.
Like just a few years ago it became impossible to run 32bit windows which effectively killed all OS software updates for hardware older than ~2005. Most application software followed.
On the Linux they just dropped support for the 486 and older versions of the kernel will likely still get security updates for a while.
I think for these kind of scenarios what Apple should do is unlock the device when it officially stop supporting with new iOS updates. You bought the device and you own it, so you should be able to use it as long as you want.
the main issue is that's an ipad and it's locked. In contrast - a 15y+ laptop can be used (after few upgrades - i5-560M, 8GB RAM, 500GB SSD, AC-8260) to do office work: it runs the latest Firefox and Open Office + googledocs and friends without too much trouble.
Android devices are unlocked, non-manufacturer OSes are still well outside of "easy" to install, much less get all features working.
The main problem is that people maintaining the OS build for your hardware is the same people making the hardware. If legislation forced to divest both into separate companies the support would last far, far longer.
I would also want that for TV software or car software.
But I guess there is no money to be made on that software...otherwise we would already see a bunch of non-manufacturer companies offering software for 3rd party devices that are unlocked, wouldn't we?
Or maybe the used hardware is just not documented well enough
<sigh> If only that were true. I have a Samsung S20 with 128gb storage and a adequate battery that is ewaste because of the locked bootloader and now permanently vulnerable kernel.
Not disagreeing with your premise (the same should be done with ISPs — own the connection or the wires, but not both). I'd just take the "hard" install with fewer features over what we have now.
I recently had to throw out a first gen iPad that was physically still in mint condition (even including the battery, somehow), simply for the lack of support essentially turning it into a useless brick.
IMO this is one of the biggest gaps in the new EU repair rules (from what I have seen of it). It should mandate unlockable bootloaders, etc. or at the very least an unlockable bootloader once the regular support period is over.
Imagine the cool things people could do with old iPads. Put Android or Ubuntu Touch and give it to people who cannot afford a tablet. Wall display for Home Assistant. Rip out the batteries and have a very low energy ARM server, etc.
> an unlockable bootloader once the regular support period is over
If we're talking about a 15-year old device, it definitely feels like requiring (1) a boot loader unlock method & (2) all technical specs required for basic functioning (display, input, compute) aren't overly burdensome on Apple et al.
Essentially mandating a corporate 'methods and specifications' EOL requirement to avoid device obsolescence.
This would also have a side effect of giving the EU a regulatory trade barrier against sketchy fly-by-night Chinese tech (e.g. "DMOAO tablet").
And encouraging tier I tech device manufacturers to offer longer warranties, in their own self-profit-interest.
I understand that Apple can't provide upgrades for free, but why can't I buy an upgrade for $30 or whatever? Better than throwing away perfectly good devices.
And they won't let anyone install any other software onto the hardware, so I can't even rely on the free market providing what I want.
There probably also won't be enough people to pay $30 per year to justify the salary of the people to maintain it. Microsoft tried that with Windows 10 and largely gave up outside of Corporations which they had by the gonads.
> Unfortunately regulations often don't go far enough.
Eh, what are you proposing? That these new regulations should cover +10 year old devices too?
Similarly I still have an iPhone with a lightning port instead of the legally mandated USB-C port, but at no point was I expecting Apple to somehow change the ports of existing devices.
I'd say that we need regulation requiring user-replacable software. Even though a PC might not be supported by Windows 11, and subsequently major browsers will cease support. You can still install a 3rd-party OS like Linux which will maintain support far beyond the original EoL.
Same goes for Android devices, I used to have an LG G2 (the phone, not the TV), which IIRC shipped with Android 4 or 5, and through LineageOS I updated it all the way to Android 11. Granted it couldn't remain relevant forever, its 32-bit ARM architecture is quite outdated and a lot of apps lost support for it, but for a while it remained quite useful.
Arguably compute performance has changed very little in the past five years and we're way into diminishing returns for silicon, so yes it makes perfect sense for devices to last more than a decade and remain perfectly capable machines now as long as they're not kneecapped by lack of support combined with a locked ecosystem. Manufacturers either need to keep it updated or they need to make it possible for others to do so.
I tried to install this the other day with Altstore and gave up after 30min. I learned there are two altstores, and the one I could install didn't support the "source" listed on that repository. Then I looked into the other options and all required some terminal messing and rooting and what not. I thought in the EU we should be able to just install software now.
Updating old products is expensive, especially as their hardware falls further behind. Unless manufacturers adopt some kind of subscription model to justify the cost of continued updates, which would likely be very unpopular, I don’t see how they can realistically keep older devices supported indefinitely.
Vendors do not have to support their product indefinitely. They have to design their products in a way that they do not become useless after support ends. E.g. by opening up the bootloader and letting users install custom software.
> E.g. by opening up the bootloader and letting users install custom software.
If limited to the bootloader, such as allowing users to run their own operating system, then that is definitely a possibility, with the exception of firmware running on the device itself. But I doubt that is what most users here are expecting, and in my opinion, it wouldn't provide much value to the vast majority of customers.
It would open up a tertiary market for smaller companies to do that (maybe even sell into a different market).
Not every business venue needs to be a multi billion multi national and using some devices for a long time is better than burrying them all in a land fill.
> it wouldn't provide much value to the vast majority of customers
I should have phrased it as:
> it wouldn't provide enough value to their customers to create meaningful value for the company.
You can argue that "ha ha, we shall enact regulation to force them to do this!" but the reality is that only a small percentage of customers would actually benefit from such regulation. Because most people are not going to tinker with their devices, especially if there is no easy or straightforward way to do so.
So in the end, you'd have more regulation that makes it harder for new players to enter the market, while doing little to solve actual customer problems and ultimately imposing significant costs on manufacturers.
For people who actually care about long-term device support, they can choose reputable manufacturers that already offer it. If no such manufacturers exist, that may instead represent an opportunity for someone to build a business around providing better long-term support.
> It's the large stream of perfectly usable e-waste modern practices emit.
From my point of view, the proposals suggested here, although difficult to discuss in detail because of how abstract they are, would not solve this issue in any meaningful way. By "meaningful" I mean that the cost-to-benefit or cost-to-regulation ratio would be rather poor.
IMO, the core issue with e-waste isn't necessarily bad practices by manufacturers, but rather consumer behavior. People often throw away 2–3-year-old phones that are still fully supported by the manufacturer. For example, with the exception of the phone I broke, I usually replace my phone every 5–6 years. Within that timeframe, I have the battery replaced by the manufacturer at least once, and the phone continues to work just fine.
This issue extends beyond electronics as well. People often throw away clothes once they "go out of fashion," which these days happens exceptionally quickly. The same applies to furniture, appliances, and other consumer goods that are often replaced simply because newer models are available, rather than because the old ones are no longer functional.
This is ultimately a broader issue of consumer culture and our tendency to replace things rather than repair or continue using them. I don't agree that this is primarily due to a lack of repair options or difficulty accessing repairs. In many cases, the means to repair these products already exist, but consumers simply choose to replace them instead.
> This issue extends beyond electronics as well. People often throw away clothes once they "go out of fashion," which these days happens exceptionally quickly. The same applies to furniture, appliances, and other consumer goods
This deserves a 'in the first world' caveat. Most waste streams terminate in the not-first world. There's a reason there are so many photos of African and SE Asian markets full of a hodgepodge of mobile device and English-printed t-shirts.
Which is to say, increasing repairability shouldn't just be measured by how likely the first world is to use it, but also to how useful it would be to downstream consumers.
To your list, there is a critical caveat to my caveat though: weight and volume.
Things like appliances (small motor, big bulky box) and furniture (bulky) are exceptions to the above, given their difficulty to efficiency ship en masse.
> I don't agree [consumer tendency to replace over repair] is primarily due to a lack of repair options or difficulty accessing repairs. In many cases, the means to repair these products already exist, but consumers simply choose to replace them instead.
It's a gradient, like all things. Repair has difficulty and cost. Policies (like this one) could be enacted which decrease that difficulty and cost. Are they worth it?
> cost-to-benefit or cost-to-regulation
Which gets to the measuring. My suspicion is that most HN commenters (myself included) are weighing from placing a high value on 'owning your own tools' which may not generalize to the populace.
But even so, I think it's a valid question of whether society would be 'better' if people had more ownership of their devices. Versus the current outsourcing to the mercy of Google / Huawei / Samsung / Vivo / Xioami / Apple.
You really want to trust the government with keys to the kingdom? Like what they wanted here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple%E2%80%93FBI_encryption_d...
And no, I wouldn’t trust an EU government or coalition any more than the US or any other country
It is not always possible to provide the required support. First, it is expensive, as someone needs to prepare all the materials and resources the community would need to continue supporting the product after official support ends. Second, there are legal restrictions, for example, you may not be allowed to provide access to the radio firmware. Finally, most companies simply do not want to make their intellectual property publicly available.
You could make the argument that manufacturers only need to provide the means for the community to support the device, rather than extensive documentation. However, these communities are often so small that this would never be a priority for most companies. Combined with the IP-related issues, I don't think this is really feasible.
The intellectual property is not some god given right unlike air and water. There is little need not to support a decade old hardware and effectively turning the said hardware to a door stop, or a landfill.
Btw, it's difficult to believe the post is a good faith argument.
> There is little need not to support a decade old hardware
> it's difficult to believe the post is a good faith argument.
Right back at you, I guess.
I would understand the frustration if manufacturers were not upfront about how long they intend to support their hardware, although that is not always easy to predict. However, demanding that they support hardware indefinitely is unreasonable.
>demanding that they support hardware indefinitely is unreasonable.
nobody demands that - it's more of the fact the hardware is locked and serialized, e.g. it won't accept a blue tooth module unless it's unlocked with proprietary software.
The hardware manufacturers spend quite the effort, so the devices are not open and require designated tools for minor fixes. I can imagine it not wanting to perform a warranty repair but that's the end of it.
> it's more of the fact the hardware is locked and serialized, e.g. it won't accept a blue tooth module unless it's unlocked with proprietary software.
Manufacturers have a regulatory obligation to prevent unauthorized combinations of software and hardware where those combinations could compromise the device's compliance. This is particularly relevant to radio firmware, including Bluetooth, where the manufacturer must ensure that the radio equipment remains compliant with the applicable regulatory requirements.
> The hardware manufacturers spend quite the effort
Because they are required to do so by regulation. Those regulations exist for good reason, for example to prevent unwanted interference in the radio spectrum.
Beyond regulatory requirements, manufacturers also have legitimate reasons for preventing unauthorized tampering with their devices. One concern is theft and device resale, while another is software security.
You may argue that you don't care about these things, which is perfectly fine. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and there is nothing inherently wrong with holding it. However, I would argue that this is not what the vast majority of customers expect, and that most would ultimately accept these constraints for the benefits they provide.
> they don't want to give up ownership back to you
No, it's simply that your demand is completely unreasonable. You are essentially asking them to adopt an open-source model. That can mean giving up control over its intellectual property and potentially exposing proprietary technology to competitors, especially when some products are valuable precisely because of the software that runs on them.
Edit:
I don't know why it is not allowing me to reply to you.
> No, I'm asking these devices to work like normal computers
What exactly is a "normal computer," and what specific behavior are you expecting?
Can you freely tinker with your motherboard's firmware? Can you modify the Bluetooth or Wi-Fi firmware on your motherboard? Can you modify and independently update the internals of Windows itself? These are all examples of components that are proprietary and subject to limitations, even on what we would consider a "normal computer."
There may be some exceptions to the above, but the same generally applies to mass-produced, commercially distributed devices. They are often locked down for technical, legal, and security reasons, and "unlocking" them is simply not a reasonable expectation in many cases.
> I don't know why it is not allowing me to reply to you.
There's a 10 minute timer on HN to avoid discussions becoming too heated (at least AFAIK that's the reason).
> You are essentially asking them to adopt an open-source model. That can mean giving up control over its intellectual property and potentially exposing proprietary technology to competitors, especially when some products are valuable precisely because of the software that runs on them.
...and nothing wrong with that. The right-to-repair is mainly aimed at discontinued products anyway, at that point the "IP" is so old it doesn't require protection (and to be honest, the whole concept of long term "intellectual property" is bullshit anyway, just as long-term "copyright" - about 3 to 5 years is a reasonable time frame for 'exploiting' a novel idea, after that it should be free for all - at that time your competitors will have figured it out anyway).
In the 80s it was entirely normal to get parts lists, schematics and ROM listings when buying a computer for instance (and I guess other electronic devices too), there is absolutely no reason why access to the same information should be restricted today.
> ...and nothing wrong with that. The right-to-repair is mainly aimed at discontinued products anyway, at that point the "IP" is so old it doesn't require protection
What you consider "old" may not be what I, or the manufacturer, consider "old." A lot of embedded development is incremental: you start with an existing codebase and continue building on it to meet new requirements. Occasionally, the entire system is rewritten from scratch, but that is not necessarily the case. Therefore, even software running on a discontinued product may contain code and intellectual property that is still actively used in newer products.
> and to be honest, the whole concept of long term "intellectual property" is bullshit anyway, just as long-term "copyright" - about 3 to 5 years is a reasonable time frame for 'exploiting' a novel idea, after that it should be free for all - at that time your competitors will have figured it out anyway
I believe you are confusing intellectual property and copyright with patents. If that is the case, I would largely agree. I would even go further and argue that many things that are allowed to be patented are ridiculous and not particularly novel at all. Some are so obvious that even a layperson could arrive at the same solution, which arguably should disqualify them from being patented in the first place. This is especially egregious in the standards world, where some companies hold patents on solutions that are intended to be standardized and used globally.
If, however, you are not confusing these terms, then I find your position absolutely ridiculous. It would be akin to asking Microsoft to release the source code for Windows, Office, Teams, Azure (although who wants to see that mess, am I right? lol) simply because "intellectual property" isn't a thing. That would outright destroy countless business models, and I can assure you that no major global or regional regulatory body is going to adopt that position.
> >>there is absolutely no reason why<< access to the same information should be restricted today.
There are plenty of reasons. You simply don't agree with them. That's perfectly fine, but claiming that there is "no reason" for things to work differently from how you want them to is simply ridiculous. Many of them I've mentioned in this post.
No, I'm asking these devices to work like normal computers, because that's what they are.
Also I doubt that there's anything left on 2015 era hardware that will grant you an edge on current age competitors
To give a reply:
> Can you freely tinker with your motherboard's firmware? Can you modify the Bluetooth or Wi-Fi firmware on your motherboard? Can you modify and independently update the internals of Windows itself? These are all examples of components that are proprietary and subject to limitations, even on what we would consider a "normal computer."
Yes I expect do be able to do all of those things if I want to, it's my computer and I should be free to do whatever I want on it. Including modifying firmware, modifying the OS and modifying anything else you can think of.
Do I want to do all of these? Probably not but the freedom for me to do it should be there if I change my mind. And no, it's a reasonable expectation.
> I'm asking these devices to work like normal computers
> Yes I expect do be able to do all of those things if I want to
For the components I listed, and based on my understanding of "normal computers" as desktops and laptops, you cannot do all of these things today.
> it's my computer
It's their firmware. They don't magically give up their intellectual property rights when you purchase a piece of hardware from them.
What would be reasonable is providing access to datasheets, schematics, and manuals, where permitted by local laws, so that users can tinker with and develop for the hardware themselves. However, that shouldn't come with the expectation that the hardware's chain of trust remains intact or that all features will continue to function as they do with the OEM software.
I never stated that I own the intellectual property but I'm stating that I own the device and such, should be able to do any modification I see fit to the device, regardless if the manufacturer thinks it's a good idea or not.
And yes, I also support adding laws to force manufacturers to respect my rights.
> However, that shouldn't come with the expectation that the hardware's chain of trust remains intact or that all features will continue to function as they do with the OEM software.
I'm okay with that if the manufacturer doesn't remove features in bad faith (which they almost always do as there's very few legit uses on their side).
> I'm okay with that if the manufacturer doesn't remove features in bad faith
Again with the abstract. Provide an example of a manufacturer removing features in "bad faith." It is very likely that what you view as a "bad faith" action actually has a reasonable explanation from the manufacturer's perspective. This is especially true in cases of chain-of-trust and anti-tamper protections.
> I never stated that I own the intellectual property but I'm stating that I own the device and such
Technical specifications, datasheets, and similar materials can also constitute intellectual property of the manufacturer. Without access to these, you may not be able to "do any modification I see fit," especially when phrased so broadly that it could mean almost anything.
The only option I can see being somewhat feasible is for manufacturers to eventually release APIs with closed-source binaries, allowing users to create their own applications or operating systems.
This would, however, require regulation to ensure that manufacturers are allowed to provide these interfaces, as in some cases even the APIs themselves may be considered intellectual property, and manufacturers may not always be legally allowed to disclose them. Although it could be argued that if this is regulated, manufacturers would select vendors that can meet these regulatory demands.
The other issues to resolve here would be anti-tamper and chain-of-trust concerns that could arise from such an approach. However, if there were no expectation that users would continue to have access to the manufacturer's software or services, I think these issues could be resolved.
> Provide an example of a manufacturer removing features in "bad faith."
Sure, any app not running because of artificial software restrictions (and no, I won't buy the claims of """security""" when even the manufacturer doesn't have a real picture of what's running on the phone and cannot assess it's security - or sometimes even includes built-in adware!).
Another example of bad faith could be Apple removing true tone on official screen replacement.
Again, I'm not against the concept of chain of trust, it's just I've never seen any software restriction which I would think justified, so a good use case might exist in theory, I'm just not aware of it.
> The other issues to resolve here would be anti-tamper and chain-of-trust concerns that could arise from such an approach
I have serious doubts that integrity checks and anti-tamper mechanisms are legal in the current environment anyways as there's no real competition in the mobile space and these are further barrier to create competitors (and were even created for this purpose in the first place in some cases, like in Android)
It's definitely against current anti trust laws. These companies are just too large and too wealthy for the laws to be applied at the moment.
You've just made an argument for a bunch of regulation to force opening up and removing obstacles.
E.g.: "for example, you may not be allowed to provide access to the radio firmware." Given that everything has a radio these days (everything is wifi- and/or bluetooth- enabled), this is just stupid. Why is firmware for basically essential infra not legally available?
> Given that everything has a radio these days [...] this is just stupid
Manufacturers need to pass certification for their radio implementations, such as FCC, CE/RED, PTCRB, Bluetooth SIG, etc. Any modification to the radio firmware can potentially change the device's RF characteristics and cause it to fall outside of the conditions under which it was certified.
This is why manufacturers generally cannot simply release the radio firmware and allow users to modify it freely, as doing so could result in devices operating outside their certified RF parameters and expose them to regulatory or legal liability.
Not to mention the intellectual property rights of the manufacturer and their vendors. The firmware may contain proprietary code, algorithms, or other licensed technology that the manufacturer does not have the legal right to redistribute, especially if it was developed by a third-party vendor.
Well I'm quite sure the advances in LLMs abilities are going to be quite a nice change in this regard. If vendors would be required to release all firmware source code or at least full specs after devices drop out of support, it would be fairly simple and cheap now to port drivers to new kernel release or different OSs.
> If vendors would be required to release all firmware source code
This may be the hope or expectation you have with regard to regulation, but I don't think it is ever going to happen because it would conflict with other regulatory requirements, especially in the realm of radio.
You may say "regulation can be changed" but radio regulations exist for real reasons and I doubt anyone could convince the major governing bodies otherwise.
Not to mention that such a requirement could effectively force companies to give up intellectual property that they have invested heavily in developing. What if a manufacturer outsources the firmware development to a vendor that specializes in firmware? If the manufacturer were required to release that firmware as open source, they would effectively be forcing that vendor to open-source its product. That could undermine the vendor's entire business model.
> You're saying the chips in iPads etc. are not regulation-compliant and this non-compliance can be trivially unlocked if you know the specs?
The radio modules in iPads are compliant, assuming that the software using those radio modules is compliant as well. This is why manufacturers have to enforce specific combinations of software and hardware, as not all of the functionality and regulatory constraints are implemented in the hardware itself.
If you gain access to the radio module of an iPad, you can definitely make it non-compliant, depending on the level of access the module provides. In my experience, however, radio modules generally provide enough access that a user could potentially cause regulatory issues if the relevant safeguards were removed or you do not adhere to the specification of the radio protocol you are using.
You can also do this with Linux, a laptop or desktop, and many wireless cards. Hell, you can change your region in OpenWRT and make your router noncompliant.
Your link doesn't say that the device isn't getting any updates. It only says that, if I understood it correctly, pre-2023 devices don't receive OS updates. They still get guaranteed security updates for five years.
> They don't have to support it indefinitely.
How long should support for devices last in that case? And what should be supported?
> if I understood it correctly, pre-2023 devices don't receive OS updates.
Indeed. An ancient 3-year-old device isn't receiving any OS updates. Which means it doesn't get features, its core software isn't updated inculding such minor things as the browser (most apps on TVs are browser apps), store etc.
Eventually its certificates will expire and it won't be able to connect to most things
> How long should support for devices last in that case? And what should be supported?
Depends on device. People don't buy TVs every year. So a 10-year support isn't out of the question. That said, 10 years should probably be minimum for almost all hardware.
E.g. Microsoft supports Windows for ~10 years, and for a much wider array of hardware.
After that: open up, and let people do whatever they want with it.
I live in a rich European country. This is not Shenzhen. The, very scarce, technically inclined people who know how to repair a vacuum cleaner or electronic toothbrush can get a real job with an hourly rate that makes repairs economically unfeasible.
Repair cafes are nice hobby projects for pensionados but it is not going to move the needle.
Not everything has to be a business. Our local library has "repair café Sundays", and most of the people involved in it are volunteers. There are some "pensionados" among them (and they are cherished for their institutional knowledge), but they are definitely not the majority. There is a strong community of interested tech nerds that like to help each other out and learn how to fix things themselves, and who also want to learn from the previous generation.
The manufacturer/seller already employs people who deal with this, and it's not expensive. Getting my washing machine fixed for 10€ parts + labor instead of 300€ parts + labor sounds mighty nice to me.
> Manufacturers must also provide [...] access to spare parts at a reasonable price.
This is the important part. Stupid shit like 0.3€ soldering buttons to 200€ motherboards so the repair is expensive has got to go.
> Stupid shit like 0.3€ soldering buttons to 200€ motherboards so the repair is expensive has got to go
Hopefully data collection that supports device-specific repair cost breakdowns and tracking is part of this legislation.
Currently, manufacturers optimize for manufacturing -- it's cheaper to assemble with a $200 all-in-one board than a discrete button.
If it were more expensive to use an all-in-one board (say, because they were on the hook for repairs and/or buyers had a place to easily compare repair costs...) then they'd do otherwise.
Price/cost obfuscation is the root of a lot of inefficiencies.
TV, unfortunately, are the worst offenders in most cases as they cannot be reliably opened.
Things that are on the not hard scale to fix - cleaning robots, inkjet printers (with fill-in ink), laptops (incl. board repairs as long as they are not a BGA), desktop pc, mowing robots, mowers (all 2 and 4 stroke variants), most battery tools (drills, sanders, saws, etc.). Overall stuff that can opened reliably, even if that requires specialized tools like bearing pullers or impact wrenches.
Things that are hard - anything that uses glue as the prime assembly fastening choice, e.g. TVs and monitors (or just plastic clips). Cheap plastics (ABS) bodies are annoying as well. Fridges, no way to refill or fix the compressor. Serialized components that need specialized tools/software after being replaced.
In that regard that would be my complaint - ease of disassembly and clearly marked parts, exploded views, schematics. Spare parts. Personally, I'd spend half a night to repair 30-40euro device w/o any documentation, just b/c I can -- but that shall not be the norm.
1200 euro TVs don't really break after 5 years anymore, not in any meaningful numbers.
I've played with entrepreneurship most of my life - I know how "a solution looking for a problem" looks like. Any VC would laugh them out of the room.
Edit: don't get me wrong - there is a part of this that is almost free and only requires a bit of enforcement. That part is good, and it's exactly what governments should deal with. But anything that imposes direct or indirect costs should go through serious cost/benefit analysis.
I've overheard a guy last week in town saying they brought their iPhone to a repair shop and they've done the repair at fraction of the cost they expected. They were excited and told their friends.
My robot vacuum cleaner broke. The lidar sensor is broken. The manufactures asked me to send it to their repair center but the whole thing, including the dock. This is a major pain to do so. I would much rather receive a new lidar sensor with some instructions on how to repair it myself.
The moment manufacturers started making products that didn’t last long enough, with replacement parts expensive enough, and raising hourly rates for labour which made it cheaper to buy a new product rather than repair the old one. Also the new product tended to be more efficient with electricity and water or marketed as such.
My experience in the US is that you can take a broken item to a reputable shop and the guy will spend a minute or two messing with it and then he'll give you an on-the-spot estimate of repairability and price.
In Finland, the standard line is that they'll take your gizmo and put it in the repair queue - and then just to have someone in the back room so much as breathe on it - it's gonna cost ya 50, 80, a hundred.
Generally, and for small appliances and electronics especially, you can optimize for cost or repairability. Consumers largely do not consider repairability when purchasing but they hugely consider cost. It's easy to see why the market is disincentivized to create repairable goods.
It's because that's what we collectively told them to do.
They have already begun. It’s called the Product Liability Directive (2024/2853) and forces software providers to guarantee fitness for purposes and safety.
Does that conceptually imply we might get newer OS releases for ARM machines that ship with one that's already outdated and call it good? That would be pretty epic, but I doubt it covers it.
I'm not disagreeing, but also I don't understand what you mean. It's already legal for you to repair your own software, AFAIK? Or are you proposing they force only "source available" software or something?
Yet another baffling comment section, but in this case the excuse doesn't work [0].
In a forum full of "tech guys" that like "tech solutions" the number of comments that are against being allowed to thinker and repair their own devices is above zero.... we really need to drown out those voices, they represent a very shameful set of individuals that taint what (I would like to think) we like and prefer
> People now have the right to request that manufacturers repair products that are technically repairable under EU law.
This kind of misses the point though.
Don't get me wrong, the above is nice to have as a law, but it does not
really understand the underlying problem domain. Louis Rossmann explained
it several times already; the problem was not that primarily that upstream
companies refuse to repair something, but that they deliberately make it
harder for downstream folks to repair something, for many reasons. Planned
obsolescence, trade secrets and other shenanigans, unable to purchase
replacements parts and so forth. Having a law that forces easy repairs onto
the upstream company, DOES NOT FIX THE DOWNSTREAM PROBLEM; and in some cases
it will make it worse. If the EU were serious about fighting for consumers,
they would require of all companies operating in the EU, WITHOUT EXCEPTION,
to not deliberately make it harder for downstream people to repair things.
We now live in the age of 3D printing, so really repairing anything should be
much much easier (at the least for simple materials; I understand that 3D printing
isn't that great yet with regards to tiny electronics parts). To me it seems as
if lobbyists always sneak in and worsen the legislation here. Both in the EU and in the USA.
Good luck to hardware startups in Europe! For every developer now a company needs one technical writer or compliance specialist. That basically means that all small everyday electronics products will come from overseas. Either because it’s cheaper or it’s cheaper and nobody cares about certification.
"The 'right to repair' regulations introduce new rights and supports aimed at encouraging repair over disposal, including a repair obligation for manufacturers of certain products and the establishment of a national repair platform to help consumers locate repair services."
If your hardware start-up was going to tell me to buy a new product if it broke after a year, then I've no problem if it doesn't get going in the EU.
We don't need more cheap tat, we need things that can have a reasonable shelf life. We used to expect that from products as standard. Then when more things became electronic, it started to drift into obsolence after X years.
But there's so many products that don't need to be replaced. I don't need a state-of-the-art pedometer or weighing scales, I just need one that does the job it did when I bought it.
Actually they've just handed the entire market to the few companies that will put in the effort.
If Apple, Samsung and the Chinese manufacturer isn't compliant, then Fairphone just got handed a market of 500 million people with no real competition. Some US electronics manufacturer who doesn't want to deal with EU regulation, is handing over the entire market to someone who will, and that company can still sell everywhere else.
This is so disingenuous. I've been part of two Norwegian hard tech startups in the past few years (one as a founder, one currently as an embedded lead) and all it took was our mech engineer (which you will always need) making an accessible case design and publishing a short two page PDF on disassembly.
Down the road, if we make it, we will have access to funds for a few roles that maintain spare parts and a repair (more likely replace/refurb) department, that will coordinate with our manufacturing houses.
None of this blocks innovation or velocity for early stage startups. Unless you have more concrete examples I'm somehow missing?
Fine. We're already meeting the goals for free by virtue of building a secure product and infrastructure from the start. (Read: a good product.) When risk assessments and certs are required and roll out (1.5 years from now), we'll just get a contractor or two on board for a few months to do it, and to set up the processes to keep it rolling. It's in the budget.
People act like these are industry shattering requirements, but hard tech is already subject to a plethora of requirements we have to handle every day. We will always have some kind of process for CE certification, battery safety requirements, GDPR, or open source licensing and toolchain access, etc, etc. This is just another (honestly, minor) process to roll in with the rest of them.
Always the same weak anti-regulation argument: "if companies can't screw over their consumers, how can they ever turn a profit??". And guess what, this law also applies to foreign companies selling in the EU.
I would like this to be extended to software.
If I buy an Android phone, I should be able to maintain/update the operating system.
If I buy a MacBook, I should be able to maintain or change the operating system.
If I buy a TV, smart watch, microwave - I should be able to maintain their software.
The only thing prohibiting this is the fact that drivers are obfuscated and/or hardware schematics sufficient to produce drivers are not provided.
IMO, if the EU wants any technical sovereignty, they'd address this as I don't see European companies producing a competitor to the MacBook - I do however see European companies being capable of creating a competing operating system (or Linux) to install on a MacBook, but only if Apple is compelled to allow them.
The same goes for smartphones, cars, and any digital device
It's pretty likely that manufacturers would charge handsomely for these requirements. At least at first.
You'd probably also get things like TVs with very basic software at import, with much better software available for people willing to obtain it outside the EU.
Of course you should, pal! You should not buy any proprietary shite to stop investing into even more invasive proprietary antiuseful technologies. But you use to not do that, so we both are going to experience suffering. Thank you for being the bad actor for me.
You are able to do that, just like you are able to drill out the cylinders of your brand new car. If you are skilled enough. But the manufacturer doesn't have any obligation to teach you how.
Drilling is easy, dealing with ECU is not.
> According to the European Commission, the new rules are expected to bring €4.8 billion in growth and investment within the EU.
The source of this number seems to come from here, on page 73:
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELE...
Interestingly, the number is over a span of 15 years, and is only the calculated "Growth and investment".
Other numbers are "Savings in production costs" at €15.6 billion, and "Consumer savings" at 25€ per consumer per year for an impressive total of €176.5 billion.
It also lists "Business adjustment costs" at €8.1 billion, "Business administrative costs" at just €69.8 million and "Implementation and enforcement" at €105.5 million.
I wonder why "Growth and investment" was chosed as the number to use. Maybe to keep emphasising their gist of "the EU is the future for sustainable growth"?
Also, here are the announcements by the Commission:
https://commission.europa.eu/news-and-media/news/right-repai...
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/right-to-repair-...
I would like to see small appliances inbuilt batteries (mostly Li-Ion based) be prohibted. It contributes to device obsolescence and is a security risk --> burning waste dumps.
I think this regulation that comes into effect February of next year concerns all kinds of batteries, not only those of smartphones https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL... . I think, because I didn't doublecheck right now further than reading the first matching "appliances" paragraph (ctrl-f).
What I know off the top of my head, from reading the legislation a while ago. Is that technical reasons, such as waterproof devices, will still be able to retain non user replaceable batteries if it is needed to keep the device waterproof.
Especially vaping devices. Cigarette butts were at least easier to dispose of than these plastic encased tips and single use vapes.
This is more like a "right to have repaired" than a "right to repair", unfortunately.
> including a repair obligation for manufacturers of certain products
Unfortunately regulations often don't go far enough.
I have a ~10 year old iPad Pro in perfect working condition. I can basically do nothing with it, and increasingly it can no longer even browse the internet because Safari is so outdated on it.
So it will be waste.
See similar story about Amazon bricking old Kindles: https://www.techradar.com/tablets/ereaders/amazon-bricking-c...
But, this regulation is still a tiny step in the right direction.
The iPad is easily Apple worst product in terms of consumer friendliness. A lot of iPads shipped with way to little storage and I'd be surprised if Apple didn't know this.
The 10 year old iPad is still a perfectly capable device, but it suffers from the lack of an updated operating system and enough storage to apply a would be update. There are millions of people for whom an iPad is all the computing they'd ever need (many just use their phone as well), but the larger screen makes it a good option of online shopping, banking, emails, government documents, calendar and appointment booking. The price is reasonable, but it doesn't need to replace every three to five years to serve that purpose. Arguably I don't know how Apple would make money on it long term, but the lack of update should count against them in terms of their environmental image.
Apple is far from the worst, their phones updates for a long time, longer than most. Their laptops equally so. The iPad is very disappointing, because even if they issue an OS update, not all the devices can apply it, because of the lack of storage. Still better than my wife's old Samsung phone that was unable to apply any operating system update ever, because the storage was to limited.
Divorcing the OS from the hardware means stuff just lasts far, far longer.
Like just a few years ago it became impossible to run 32bit windows which effectively killed all OS software updates for hardware older than ~2005. Most application software followed.
On the Linux they just dropped support for the 486 and older versions of the kernel will likely still get security updates for a while.
I think for these kind of scenarios what Apple should do is unlock the device when it officially stop supporting with new iOS updates. You bought the device and you own it, so you should be able to use it as long as you want.
This should be a day 1 requirement. Why only when they stop supporting it?
the main issue is that's an ipad and it's locked. In contrast - a 15y+ laptop can be used (after few upgrades - i5-560M, 8GB RAM, 500GB SSD, AC-8260) to do office work: it runs the latest Firefox and Open Office + googledocs and friends without too much trouble.
Android devices are unlocked, non-manufacturer OSes are still well outside of "easy" to install, much less get all features working.
The main problem is that people maintaining the OS build for your hardware is the same people making the hardware. If legislation forced to divest both into separate companies the support would last far, far longer.
I would also want that for TV software or car software.
But I guess there is no money to be made on that software...otherwise we would already see a bunch of non-manufacturer companies offering software for 3rd party devices that are unlocked, wouldn't we?
Or maybe the used hardware is just not documented well enough
> Android devices are unlocked
<sigh> If only that were true. I have a Samsung S20 with 128gb storage and a adequate battery that is ewaste because of the locked bootloader and now permanently vulnerable kernel.
Not disagreeing with your premise (the same should be done with ISPs — own the connection or the wires, but not both). I'd just take the "hard" install with fewer features over what we have now.
I recently had to throw out a first gen iPad that was physically still in mint condition (even including the battery, somehow), simply for the lack of support essentially turning it into a useless brick.
IMO this is one of the biggest gaps in the new EU repair rules (from what I have seen of it). It should mandate unlockable bootloaders, etc. or at the very least an unlockable bootloader once the regular support period is over.
Imagine the cool things people could do with old iPads. Put Android or Ubuntu Touch and give it to people who cannot afford a tablet. Wall display for Home Assistant. Rip out the batteries and have a very low energy ARM server, etc.
> an unlockable bootloader once the regular support period is over
If we're talking about a 15-year old device, it definitely feels like requiring (1) a boot loader unlock method & (2) all technical specs required for basic functioning (display, input, compute) aren't overly burdensome on Apple et al.
Essentially mandating a corporate 'methods and specifications' EOL requirement to avoid device obsolescence.
This would also have a side effect of giving the EU a regulatory trade barrier against sketchy fly-by-night Chinese tech (e.g. "DMOAO tablet").
And encouraging tier I tech device manufacturers to offer longer warranties, in their own self-profit-interest.
I understand that Apple can't provide upgrades for free, but why can't I buy an upgrade for $30 or whatever? Better than throwing away perfectly good devices.
And they won't let anyone install any other software onto the hardware, so I can't even rely on the free market providing what I want.
> why can't I buy an upgrade for $30 or whatever?
Because otherwise you won't buy new device for full price
Well yes, of course. That shouldn't be the determinant, though.
There probably also won't be enough people to pay $30 per year to justify the salary of the people to maintain it. Microsoft tried that with Windows 10 and largely gave up outside of Corporations which they had by the gonads.
> Unfortunately regulations often don't go far enough.
Eh, what are you proposing? That these new regulations should cover +10 year old devices too?
Similarly I still have an iPhone with a lightning port instead of the legally mandated USB-C port, but at no point was I expecting Apple to somehow change the ports of existing devices.
Not the OP.
I'd say that we need regulation requiring user-replacable software. Even though a PC might not be supported by Windows 11, and subsequently major browsers will cease support. You can still install a 3rd-party OS like Linux which will maintain support far beyond the original EoL.
Same goes for Android devices, I used to have an LG G2 (the phone, not the TV), which IIRC shipped with Android 4 or 5, and through LineageOS I updated it all the way to Android 11. Granted it couldn't remain relevant forever, its 32-bit ARM architecture is quite outdated and a lot of apps lost support for it, but for a while it remained quite useful.
Arguably compute performance has changed very little in the past five years and we're way into diminishing returns for silicon, so yes it makes perfect sense for devices to last more than a decade and remain perfectly capable machines now as long as they're not kneecapped by lack of support combined with a locked ecosystem. Manufacturers either need to keep it updated or they need to make it possible for others to do so.
And with the memory crunch, it's likely that we passed peak memory in consumer devices, at least for a bit.
So for next decade, older devices might often have more memory!
Try out Reynard, which ships up-to-date Gecko instead of relying on outdated system WebKit! https://github.com/minh-ton/reynard-browser
Might help you get some more use out of it, thanks to the DMA :-)
I tried to install this the other day with Altstore and gave up after 30min. I learned there are two altstores, and the one I could install didn't support the "source" listed on that repository. Then I looked into the other options and all required some terminal messing and rooting and what not. I thought in the EU we should be able to just install software now.
Updating old products is expensive, especially as their hardware falls further behind. Unless manufacturers adopt some kind of subscription model to justify the cost of continued updates, which would likely be very unpopular, I don’t see how they can realistically keep older devices supported indefinitely.
Vendors do not have to support their product indefinitely. They have to design their products in a way that they do not become useless after support ends. E.g. by opening up the bootloader and letting users install custom software.
> E.g. by opening up the bootloader and letting users install custom software.
If limited to the bootloader, such as allowing users to run their own operating system, then that is definitely a possibility, with the exception of firmware running on the device itself. But I doubt that is what most users here are expecting, and in my opinion, it wouldn't provide much value to the vast majority of customers.
It would open up a tertiary market for smaller companies to do that (maybe even sell into a different market).
Not every business venue needs to be a multi billion multi national and using some devices for a long time is better than burrying them all in a land fill.
I'm sorry, instead of:
> it wouldn't provide much value to the vast majority of customers
I should have phrased it as:
> it wouldn't provide enough value to their customers to create meaningful value for the company.
You can argue that "ha ha, we shall enact regulation to force them to do this!" but the reality is that only a small percentage of customers would actually benefit from such regulation. Because most people are not going to tinker with their devices, especially if there is no easy or straightforward way to do so.
So in the end, you'd have more regulation that makes it harder for new players to enter the market, while doing little to solve actual customer problems and ultimately imposing significant costs on manufacturers.
For people who actually care about long-term device support, they can choose reputable manufacturers that already offer it. If no such manufacturers exist, that may instead represent an opportunity for someone to build a business around providing better long-term support.
Imho, the problem the EU is trying to solve isn't necessarily utility to the original buyer.
It's the large stream of perfectly usable e-waste modern practices emit.
Anything that makes a significant portion of that stream reusable by anyone is a win.
If that's someone buying e-waste, unlocking devices, flashing linux, and then reselling it to whomever then that's still a win.
> It's the large stream of perfectly usable e-waste modern practices emit.
From my point of view, the proposals suggested here, although difficult to discuss in detail because of how abstract they are, would not solve this issue in any meaningful way. By "meaningful" I mean that the cost-to-benefit or cost-to-regulation ratio would be rather poor.
IMO, the core issue with e-waste isn't necessarily bad practices by manufacturers, but rather consumer behavior. People often throw away 2–3-year-old phones that are still fully supported by the manufacturer. For example, with the exception of the phone I broke, I usually replace my phone every 5–6 years. Within that timeframe, I have the battery replaced by the manufacturer at least once, and the phone continues to work just fine.
This issue extends beyond electronics as well. People often throw away clothes once they "go out of fashion," which these days happens exceptionally quickly. The same applies to furniture, appliances, and other consumer goods that are often replaced simply because newer models are available, rather than because the old ones are no longer functional.
This is ultimately a broader issue of consumer culture and our tendency to replace things rather than repair or continue using them. I don't agree that this is primarily due to a lack of repair options or difficulty accessing repairs. In many cases, the means to repair these products already exist, but consumers simply choose to replace them instead.
> This issue extends beyond electronics as well. People often throw away clothes once they "go out of fashion," which these days happens exceptionally quickly. The same applies to furniture, appliances, and other consumer goods
This deserves a 'in the first world' caveat. Most waste streams terminate in the not-first world. There's a reason there are so many photos of African and SE Asian markets full of a hodgepodge of mobile device and English-printed t-shirts.
Which is to say, increasing repairability shouldn't just be measured by how likely the first world is to use it, but also to how useful it would be to downstream consumers.
To your list, there is a critical caveat to my caveat though: weight and volume.
Things like appliances (small motor, big bulky box) and furniture (bulky) are exceptions to the above, given their difficulty to efficiency ship en masse.
> I don't agree [consumer tendency to replace over repair] is primarily due to a lack of repair options or difficulty accessing repairs. In many cases, the means to repair these products already exist, but consumers simply choose to replace them instead.
It's a gradient, like all things. Repair has difficulty and cost. Policies (like this one) could be enacted which decrease that difficulty and cost. Are they worth it?
> cost-to-benefit or cost-to-regulation
Which gets to the measuring. My suspicion is that most HN commenters (myself included) are weighing from placing a high value on 'owning your own tools' which may not generalize to the populace.
But even so, I think it's a valid question of whether society would be 'better' if people had more ownership of their devices. Versus the current outsourcing to the mercy of Google / Huawei / Samsung / Vivo / Xioami / Apple.
>I don’t see how they can realistically keep older devices supported indefinitely.
They don't have to. Open up the platform for linux and custom OS.
unlock old hardware and let the community support
Government could hold the keys. Sufficient weird behavior should also trigger release.
You really want to trust the government with keys to the kingdom? Like what they wanted here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple%E2%80%93FBI_encryption_d... And no, I wouldn’t trust an EU government or coalition any more than the US or any other country
It is not always possible to provide the required support. First, it is expensive, as someone needs to prepare all the materials and resources the community would need to continue supporting the product after official support ends. Second, there are legal restrictions, for example, you may not be allowed to provide access to the radio firmware. Finally, most companies simply do not want to make their intellectual property publicly available.
You could make the argument that manufacturers only need to provide the means for the community to support the device, rather than extensive documentation. However, these communities are often so small that this would never be a priority for most companies. Combined with the IP-related issues, I don't think this is really feasible.
You are framing this as something they have to do: support it, release documentation, open source it, etc.
It's not. It's something they have to stop doing. Stop adding code that specifically stops third party software from running.
The intellectual property is not some god given right unlike air and water. There is little need not to support a decade old hardware and effectively turning the said hardware to a door stop, or a landfill.
Btw, it's difficult to believe the post is a good faith argument.
> There is little need not to support a decade old hardware
> it's difficult to believe the post is a good faith argument.
Right back at you, I guess.
I would understand the frustration if manufacturers were not upfront about how long they intend to support their hardware, although that is not always easy to predict. However, demanding that they support hardware indefinitely is unreasonable.
>demanding that they support hardware indefinitely is unreasonable.
nobody demands that - it's more of the fact the hardware is locked and serialized, e.g. it won't accept a blue tooth module unless it's unlocked with proprietary software.
The hardware manufacturers spend quite the effort, so the devices are not open and require designated tools for minor fixes. I can imagine it not wanting to perform a warranty repair but that's the end of it.
> it's more of the fact the hardware is locked and serialized, e.g. it won't accept a blue tooth module unless it's unlocked with proprietary software.
Manufacturers have a regulatory obligation to prevent unauthorized combinations of software and hardware where those combinations could compromise the device's compliance. This is particularly relevant to radio firmware, including Bluetooth, where the manufacturer must ensure that the radio equipment remains compliant with the applicable regulatory requirements.
> The hardware manufacturers spend quite the effort
Because they are required to do so by regulation. Those regulations exist for good reason, for example to prevent unwanted interference in the radio spectrum.
Beyond regulatory requirements, manufacturers also have legitimate reasons for preventing unauthorized tampering with their devices. One concern is theft and device resale, while another is software security.
You may argue that you don't care about these things, which is perfectly fine. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and there is nothing inherently wrong with holding it. However, I would argue that this is not what the vast majority of customers expect, and that most would ultimately accept these constraints for the benefits they provide.
> Finally, most companies simply do not want to make their intellectual property publicly available.
You can just stop to the last reason, they don't want to give up ownership back to you.
They would prefer you to throw the device in the bin and buy a new one, preferably from them again.
> they don't want to give up ownership back to you
No, it's simply that your demand is completely unreasonable. You are essentially asking them to adopt an open-source model. That can mean giving up control over its intellectual property and potentially exposing proprietary technology to competitors, especially when some products are valuable precisely because of the software that runs on them.
Edit:
I don't know why it is not allowing me to reply to you.
> No, I'm asking these devices to work like normal computers
What exactly is a "normal computer," and what specific behavior are you expecting?
Can you freely tinker with your motherboard's firmware? Can you modify the Bluetooth or Wi-Fi firmware on your motherboard? Can you modify and independently update the internals of Windows itself? These are all examples of components that are proprietary and subject to limitations, even on what we would consider a "normal computer."
There may be some exceptions to the above, but the same generally applies to mass-produced, commercially distributed devices. They are often locked down for technical, legal, and security reasons, and "unlocking" them is simply not a reasonable expectation in many cases.
> I don't know why it is not allowing me to reply to you.
There's a 10 minute timer on HN to avoid discussions becoming too heated (at least AFAIK that's the reason).
> You are essentially asking them to adopt an open-source model. That can mean giving up control over its intellectual property and potentially exposing proprietary technology to competitors, especially when some products are valuable precisely because of the software that runs on them.
...and nothing wrong with that. The right-to-repair is mainly aimed at discontinued products anyway, at that point the "IP" is so old it doesn't require protection (and to be honest, the whole concept of long term "intellectual property" is bullshit anyway, just as long-term "copyright" - about 3 to 5 years is a reasonable time frame for 'exploiting' a novel idea, after that it should be free for all - at that time your competitors will have figured it out anyway).
In the 80s it was entirely normal to get parts lists, schematics and ROM listings when buying a computer for instance (and I guess other electronic devices too), there is absolutely no reason why access to the same information should be restricted today.
> ...and nothing wrong with that. The right-to-repair is mainly aimed at discontinued products anyway, at that point the "IP" is so old it doesn't require protection
What you consider "old" may not be what I, or the manufacturer, consider "old." A lot of embedded development is incremental: you start with an existing codebase and continue building on it to meet new requirements. Occasionally, the entire system is rewritten from scratch, but that is not necessarily the case. Therefore, even software running on a discontinued product may contain code and intellectual property that is still actively used in newer products.
> and to be honest, the whole concept of long term "intellectual property" is bullshit anyway, just as long-term "copyright" - about 3 to 5 years is a reasonable time frame for 'exploiting' a novel idea, after that it should be free for all - at that time your competitors will have figured it out anyway
I believe you are confusing intellectual property and copyright with patents. If that is the case, I would largely agree. I would even go further and argue that many things that are allowed to be patented are ridiculous and not particularly novel at all. Some are so obvious that even a layperson could arrive at the same solution, which arguably should disqualify them from being patented in the first place. This is especially egregious in the standards world, where some companies hold patents on solutions that are intended to be standardized and used globally.
If, however, you are not confusing these terms, then I find your position absolutely ridiculous. It would be akin to asking Microsoft to release the source code for Windows, Office, Teams, Azure (although who wants to see that mess, am I right? lol) simply because "intellectual property" isn't a thing. That would outright destroy countless business models, and I can assure you that no major global or regional regulatory body is going to adopt that position.
> >>there is absolutely no reason why<< access to the same information should be restricted today.
There are plenty of reasons. You simply don't agree with them. That's perfectly fine, but claiming that there is "no reason" for things to work differently from how you want them to is simply ridiculous. Many of them I've mentioned in this post.
No, I'm asking these devices to work like normal computers, because that's what they are.
Also I doubt that there's anything left on 2015 era hardware that will grant you an edge on current age competitors
To give a reply:
> Can you freely tinker with your motherboard's firmware? Can you modify the Bluetooth or Wi-Fi firmware on your motherboard? Can you modify and independently update the internals of Windows itself? These are all examples of components that are proprietary and subject to limitations, even on what we would consider a "normal computer."
Yes I expect do be able to do all of those things if I want to, it's my computer and I should be free to do whatever I want on it. Including modifying firmware, modifying the OS and modifying anything else you can think of.
Do I want to do all of these? Probably not but the freedom for me to do it should be there if I change my mind. And no, it's a reasonable expectation.
> I'm asking these devices to work like normal computers
> Yes I expect do be able to do all of those things if I want to
For the components I listed, and based on my understanding of "normal computers" as desktops and laptops, you cannot do all of these things today.
> it's my computer
It's their firmware. They don't magically give up their intellectual property rights when you purchase a piece of hardware from them.
What would be reasonable is providing access to datasheets, schematics, and manuals, where permitted by local laws, so that users can tinker with and develop for the hardware themselves. However, that shouldn't come with the expectation that the hardware's chain of trust remains intact or that all features will continue to function as they do with the OEM software.
I never stated that I own the intellectual property but I'm stating that I own the device and such, should be able to do any modification I see fit to the device, regardless if the manufacturer thinks it's a good idea or not.
And yes, I also support adding laws to force manufacturers to respect my rights.
> However, that shouldn't come with the expectation that the hardware's chain of trust remains intact or that all features will continue to function as they do with the OEM software.
I'm okay with that if the manufacturer doesn't remove features in bad faith (which they almost always do as there's very few legit uses on their side).
> I'm okay with that if the manufacturer doesn't remove features in bad faith
Again with the abstract. Provide an example of a manufacturer removing features in "bad faith." It is very likely that what you view as a "bad faith" action actually has a reasonable explanation from the manufacturer's perspective. This is especially true in cases of chain-of-trust and anti-tamper protections.
> I never stated that I own the intellectual property but I'm stating that I own the device and such
Technical specifications, datasheets, and similar materials can also constitute intellectual property of the manufacturer. Without access to these, you may not be able to "do any modification I see fit," especially when phrased so broadly that it could mean almost anything.
The only option I can see being somewhat feasible is for manufacturers to eventually release APIs with closed-source binaries, allowing users to create their own applications or operating systems.
This would, however, require regulation to ensure that manufacturers are allowed to provide these interfaces, as in some cases even the APIs themselves may be considered intellectual property, and manufacturers may not always be legally allowed to disclose them. Although it could be argued that if this is regulated, manufacturers would select vendors that can meet these regulatory demands.
The other issues to resolve here would be anti-tamper and chain-of-trust concerns that could arise from such an approach. However, if there were no expectation that users would continue to have access to the manufacturer's software or services, I think these issues could be resolved.
> Provide an example of a manufacturer removing features in "bad faith."
Sure, any app not running because of artificial software restrictions (and no, I won't buy the claims of """security""" when even the manufacturer doesn't have a real picture of what's running on the phone and cannot assess it's security - or sometimes even includes built-in adware!).
Another example of bad faith could be Apple removing true tone on official screen replacement.
Again, I'm not against the concept of chain of trust, it's just I've never seen any software restriction which I would think justified, so a good use case might exist in theory, I'm just not aware of it.
> The other issues to resolve here would be anti-tamper and chain-of-trust concerns that could arise from such an approach
I have serious doubts that integrity checks and anti-tamper mechanisms are legal in the current environment anyways as there's no real competition in the mobile space and these are further barrier to create competitors (and were even created for this purpose in the first place in some cases, like in Android)
It's definitely against current anti trust laws. These companies are just too large and too wealthy for the laws to be applied at the moment.
> It is not always possible to provide the required support. First, it is expensive
By not doing it you are basically outsourcing this cost to the environment.
You've just made an argument for a bunch of regulation to force opening up and removing obstacles.
E.g.: "for example, you may not be allowed to provide access to the radio firmware." Given that everything has a radio these days (everything is wifi- and/or bluetooth- enabled), this is just stupid. Why is firmware for basically essential infra not legally available?
Same goes for many, many, many other things.
> Given that everything has a radio these days [...] this is just stupid
Manufacturers need to pass certification for their radio implementations, such as FCC, CE/RED, PTCRB, Bluetooth SIG, etc. Any modification to the radio firmware can potentially change the device's RF characteristics and cause it to fall outside of the conditions under which it was certified.
This is why manufacturers generally cannot simply release the radio firmware and allow users to modify it freely, as doing so could result in devices operating outside their certified RF parameters and expose them to regulatory or legal liability.
Not to mention the intellectual property rights of the manufacturer and their vendors. The firmware may contain proprietary code, algorithms, or other licensed technology that the manufacturer does not have the legal right to redistribute, especially if it was developed by a third-party vendor.
Well I'm quite sure the advances in LLMs abilities are going to be quite a nice change in this regard. If vendors would be required to release all firmware source code or at least full specs after devices drop out of support, it would be fairly simple and cheap now to port drivers to new kernel release or different OSs.
> If vendors would be required to release all firmware source code
This may be the hope or expectation you have with regard to regulation, but I don't think it is ever going to happen because it would conflict with other regulatory requirements, especially in the realm of radio.
You may say "regulation can be changed" but radio regulations exist for real reasons and I doubt anyone could convince the major governing bodies otherwise.
Not to mention that such a requirement could effectively force companies to give up intellectual property that they have invested heavily in developing. What if a manufacturer outsources the firmware development to a vendor that specializes in firmware? If the manufacturer were required to release that firmware as open source, they would effectively be forcing that vendor to open-source its product. That could undermine the vendor's entire business model.
> but radio regulations exist for real reasons and I doubt anyone could convince the major governing bodies otherwise.
You're saying the chips in iPads etc. are not regulation-compliant and this non-compliance can be trivially unlocked if you know the specs?
> You're saying the chips in iPads etc. are not regulation-compliant and this non-compliance can be trivially unlocked if you know the specs?
The radio modules in iPads are compliant, assuming that the software using those radio modules is compliant as well. This is why manufacturers have to enforce specific combinations of software and hardware, as not all of the functionality and regulatory constraints are implemented in the hardware itself.
If you gain access to the radio module of an iPad, you can definitely make it non-compliant, depending on the level of access the module provides. In my experience, however, radio modules generally provide enough access that a user could potentially cause regulatory issues if the relevant safeguards were removed or you do not adhere to the specification of the radio protocol you are using.
If you don't believe me look at Bluetooth SIG listings and you will note that they specify specific software versions: https://qualification.bluetooth.com/Listings/Search
You can also do this with Linux, a laptop or desktop, and many wireless cards. Hell, you can change your region in OpenWRT and make your router noncompliant.
They don't have to support it indefinitely.
Allowing users install what they want on it would be the best case scenario.
Instead we have bullshit like "your TV is three years old? No updates for you": https://developer.samsung.com/smarttv/develop/specifications...
Your link doesn't say that the device isn't getting any updates. It only says that, if I understood it correctly, pre-2023 devices don't receive OS updates. They still get guaranteed security updates for five years.
> They don't have to support it indefinitely.
How long should support for devices last in that case? And what should be supported?
> if I understood it correctly, pre-2023 devices don't receive OS updates.
Indeed. An ancient 3-year-old device isn't receiving any OS updates. Which means it doesn't get features, its core software isn't updated inculding such minor things as the browser (most apps on TVs are browser apps), store etc.
Eventually its certificates will expire and it won't be able to connect to most things
> How long should support for devices last in that case? And what should be supported?
Depends on device. People don't buy TVs every year. So a 10-year support isn't out of the question. That said, 10 years should probably be minimum for almost all hardware.
E.g. Microsoft supports Windows for ~10 years, and for a much wider array of hardware.
After that: open up, and let people do whatever they want with it.
> An ["]ancient["] 3-year-old device isn't receiving any OS updates
In the "save the planet" times.
I live in a rich European country. This is not Shenzhen. The, very scarce, technically inclined people who know how to repair a vacuum cleaner or electronic toothbrush can get a real job with an hourly rate that makes repairs economically unfeasible.
Repair cafes are nice hobby projects for pensionados but it is not going to move the needle.
Not everything has to be a business. Our local library has "repair café Sundays", and most of the people involved in it are volunteers. There are some "pensionados" among them (and they are cherished for their institutional knowledge), but they are definitely not the majority. There is a strong community of interested tech nerds that like to help each other out and learn how to fix things themselves, and who also want to learn from the previous generation.
You underestimate my willingness to 'under sell' my free time by spending it to fix something I own.
How does that generalise across the population?
Hard to tell, but if you were to replace anything when doing so would be cheaper I think people would be throwing away a lot more.
If you want an economic argument there's no way to sell my free time for anywhere near the market rate on such a short notice.
The manufacturer/seller already employs people who deal with this, and it's not expensive. Getting my washing machine fixed for 10€ parts + labor instead of 300€ parts + labor sounds mighty nice to me.
> Manufacturers must also provide [...] access to spare parts at a reasonable price.
This is the important part. Stupid shit like 0.3€ soldering buttons to 200€ motherboards so the repair is expensive has got to go.
> Stupid shit like 0.3€ soldering buttons to 200€ motherboards so the repair is expensive has got to go
Hopefully data collection that supports device-specific repair cost breakdowns and tracking is part of this legislation.
Currently, manufacturers optimize for manufacturing -- it's cheaper to assemble with a $200 all-in-one board than a discrete button.
If it were more expensive to use an all-in-one board (say, because they were on the hook for repairs and/or buyers had a place to easily compare repair costs...) then they'd do otherwise.
Price/cost obfuscation is the root of a lot of inefficiencies.
> Stupid shit like 0.3€ soldering buttons to 200€ motherboards
I won't call soldering anything on a 20-layers pcb "stupid shit".
EU is huge and hourly rates are different in many countries.
Nevertheless, the point is not the electronic toothbrush, but rather the "BIG" stuff that costs much and it's creating a lot of garbage.
A 1200 euro TV that breaks after 5 years - are you willing to buy a new one just because?
Once you have that infrastructure in place, eventually also the "smaller" things will be cheaper to replace.
TV, unfortunately, are the worst offenders in most cases as they cannot be reliably opened.
Things that are on the not hard scale to fix - cleaning robots, inkjet printers (with fill-in ink), laptops (incl. board repairs as long as they are not a BGA), desktop pc, mowing robots, mowers (all 2 and 4 stroke variants), most battery tools (drills, sanders, saws, etc.). Overall stuff that can opened reliably, even if that requires specialized tools like bearing pullers or impact wrenches.
Things that are hard - anything that uses glue as the prime assembly fastening choice, e.g. TVs and monitors (or just plastic clips). Cheap plastics (ABS) bodies are annoying as well. Fridges, no way to refill or fix the compressor. Serialized components that need specialized tools/software after being replaced.
In that regard that would be my complaint - ease of disassembly and clearly marked parts, exploded views, schematics. Spare parts. Personally, I'd spend half a night to repair 30-40euro device w/o any documentation, just b/c I can -- but that shall not be the norm.
1200 euro TVs don't really break after 5 years anymore, not in any meaningful numbers.
I've played with entrepreneurship most of my life - I know how "a solution looking for a problem" looks like. Any VC would laugh them out of the room.
Edit: don't get me wrong - there is a part of this that is almost free and only requires a bit of enforcement. That part is good, and it's exactly what governments should deal with. But anything that imposes direct or indirect costs should go through serious cost/benefit analysis.
I've overheard a guy last week in town saying they brought their iPhone to a repair shop and they've done the repair at fraction of the cost they expected. They were excited and told their friends.
Washing machine repairmen never ceased to exist.
My robot vacuum cleaner broke. The lidar sensor is broken. The manufactures asked me to send it to their repair center but the whole thing, including the dock. This is a major pain to do so. I would much rather receive a new lidar sensor with some instructions on how to repair it myself.
When did it become socially acceptable to throw things out rather than repair them ? When did it become economically rational ?
Helsinki (for one) needs some real repair cafés.
The moment manufacturers started making products that didn’t last long enough, with replacement parts expensive enough, and raising hourly rates for labour which made it cheaper to buy a new product rather than repair the old one. Also the new product tended to be more efficient with electricity and water or marketed as such.
My experience in the US is that you can take a broken item to a reputable shop and the guy will spend a minute or two messing with it and then he'll give you an on-the-spot estimate of repairability and price.
In Finland, the standard line is that they'll take your gizmo and put it in the repair queue - and then just to have someone in the back room so much as breathe on it - it's gonna cost ya 50, 80, a hundred.
As someone quipped to me, there's a reason the environmental movement used an priority ordered list.
Generally, and for small appliances and electronics especially, you can optimize for cost or repairability. Consumers largely do not consider repairability when purchasing but they hugely consider cost. It's easy to see why the market is disincentivized to create repairable goods.
It's because that's what we collectively told them to do.
Great, now require it for software.
They have already begun. It’s called the Product Liability Directive (2024/2853) and forces software providers to guarantee fitness for purposes and safety.
Does that conceptually imply we might get newer OS releases for ARM machines that ship with one that's already outdated and call it good? That would be pretty epic, but I doubt it covers it.
I'm not disagreeing, but also I don't understand what you mean. It's already legal for you to repair your own software, AFAIK? Or are you proposing they force only "source available" software or something?
Yet another baffling comment section, but in this case the excuse doesn't work [0].
In a forum full of "tech guys" that like "tech solutions" the number of comments that are against being allowed to thinker and repair their own devices is above zero.... we really need to drown out those voices, they represent a very shameful set of individuals that taint what (I would like to think) we like and prefer
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49395714
And how much of it will be ineffective because the worst offenders have bought their ways out?
It’s a step in the right direction; the alternative would be to do nothing whilst waiting for a perfect text that will never materialise.
> People now have the right to request that manufacturers repair products that are technically repairable under EU law.
This kind of misses the point though.
Don't get me wrong, the above is nice to have as a law, but it does not really understand the underlying problem domain. Louis Rossmann explained it several times already; the problem was not that primarily that upstream companies refuse to repair something, but that they deliberately make it harder for downstream folks to repair something, for many reasons. Planned obsolescence, trade secrets and other shenanigans, unable to purchase replacements parts and so forth. Having a law that forces easy repairs onto the upstream company, DOES NOT FIX THE DOWNSTREAM PROBLEM; and in some cases it will make it worse. If the EU were serious about fighting for consumers, they would require of all companies operating in the EU, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, to not deliberately make it harder for downstream people to repair things. We now live in the age of 3D printing, so really repairing anything should be much much easier (at the least for simple materials; I understand that 3D printing isn't that great yet with regards to tiny electronics parts). To me it seems as if lobbyists always sneak in and worsen the legislation here. Both in the EU and in the USA.
Good luck to hardware startups in Europe! For every developer now a company needs one technical writer or compliance specialist. That basically means that all small everyday electronics products will come from overseas. Either because it’s cheaper or it’s cheaper and nobody cares about certification.
"The 'right to repair' regulations introduce new rights and supports aimed at encouraging repair over disposal, including a repair obligation for manufacturers of certain products and the establishment of a national repair platform to help consumers locate repair services."
If your hardware start-up was going to tell me to buy a new product if it broke after a year, then I've no problem if it doesn't get going in the EU.
We don't need more cheap tat, we need things that can have a reasonable shelf life. We used to expect that from products as standard. Then when more things became electronic, it started to drift into obsolence after X years.
But there's so many products that don't need to be replaced. I don't need a state-of-the-art pedometer or weighing scales, I just need one that does the job it did when I bought it.
Actually they've just handed the entire market to the few companies that will put in the effort.
If Apple, Samsung and the Chinese manufacturer isn't compliant, then Fairphone just got handed a market of 500 million people with no real competition. Some US electronics manufacturer who doesn't want to deal with EU regulation, is handing over the entire market to someone who will, and that company can still sell everywhere else.
The rule applies to imported goods too. So not sure why would overseas electronics get a free pass.
This is so disingenuous. I've been part of two Norwegian hard tech startups in the past few years (one as a founder, one currently as an embedded lead) and all it took was our mech engineer (which you will always need) making an accessible case design and publishing a short two page PDF on disassembly.
Down the road, if we make it, we will have access to funds for a few roles that maintain spare parts and a repair (more likely replace/refurb) department, that will coordinate with our manufacturing houses.
None of this blocks innovation or velocity for early stage startups. Unless you have more concrete examples I'm somehow missing?
How good is your employer prepared for Cyber Resilience Act?
Fine. We're already meeting the goals for free by virtue of building a secure product and infrastructure from the start. (Read: a good product.) When risk assessments and certs are required and roll out (1.5 years from now), we'll just get a contractor or two on board for a few months to do it, and to set up the processes to keep it rolling. It's in the budget.
People act like these are industry shattering requirements, but hard tech is already subject to a plethora of requirements we have to handle every day. We will always have some kind of process for CE certification, battery safety requirements, GDPR, or open source licensing and toolchain access, etc, etc. This is just another (honestly, minor) process to roll in with the rest of them.
Always the same weak anti-regulation argument: "if companies can't screw over their consumers, how can they ever turn a profit??". And guess what, this law also applies to foreign companies selling in the EU.