> Do they? Given that you later claim we don’t have the necessary criteria to determine repairability, this seems like an unsupportable claim.
They absolutely do. We don't have objective legal criteria, but Louis Rossmann's channel and business is a testament to how component-level board repair is not only viable, but very profitable. Apple (or most other computer manufacturers, for that matter) will never offer you something like that.
I think that criteria is necessary for legal action. Otherwise, right-to-repair could be dead on arrival (eg France's implementation) or go way too far (eg requiring a CPU's L1 cache to be replaceable). However, even without that criteria, it's plain to see that manufacturers are minimizing repair options as much as possible to extract profits.
> I hear just as much from people obsessed with repair that confuses people in the other direction.
Okay? There isn't any issue for which I can confidently claim to agree with everyone in the same camp as me. Right to repair is no different. I can only defend my own thoughts and statements.
> Repairability may not be better overall if it comes at the expense of durability, or more use of materials.
> It’s not at all obvious, for example, that we have the numbers to support say, making iPhones more repairable vs simply designing them to neeed fewer more expensive repairs and then recycle them when failed.
I agree completely. I do not want us to enact legislation which forces manufacturers to sacrifice quality and progress just for the sake of repair.
That said, there is clearly a lot of room for repair to become more accessible without changing designs or adding hardly any cost to the manufacturer. That is what I'd like to see addressed with right-to-repair.
They absolutely do. We don't have objective legal criteria, but Louis Rossmann's channel and business is a testament to how component-level board repair is not only viable, but very profitable. Apple (or most other computer manufacturers, for that matter) will never offer you something like that.
I think that criteria is necessary for legal action. Otherwise, right-to-repair could be dead on arrival (eg France's implementation) or go way too far (eg requiring a CPU's L1 cache to be replaceable). However, even without that criteria, it's plain to see that manufacturers are minimizing repair options as much as possible to extract profits.
> I hear just as much from people obsessed with repair that confuses people in the other direction.
Okay? There isn't any issue for which I can confidently claim to agree with everyone in the same camp as me. Right to repair is no different. I can only defend my own thoughts and statements.
> Repairability may not be better overall if it comes at the expense of durability, or more use of materials.
> It’s not at all obvious, for example, that we have the numbers to support say, making iPhones more repairable vs simply designing them to neeed fewer more expensive repairs and then recycle them when failed.
I agree completely. I do not want us to enact legislation which forces manufacturers to sacrifice quality and progress just for the sake of repair.
That said, there is clearly a lot of room for repair to become more accessible without changing designs or adding hardly any cost to the manufacturer. That is what I'd like to see addressed with right-to-repair.