Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Hardware Technology

iFixit CEO Names and Shames Tech Giants For Right To Repair Obstruction (zdnet.com) 58

Posted by BeauHD from the called-out dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from ZDNet: iFixit co-founder and CEO Kyle Wiens has exposed how companies including Apple, Samsung, and Microsoft manipulate the design of their products and the supply chain to prevent consumers and third-party repairers from accessing necessary tools and parts to repair products such as smartphones and laptops. Speaking during the Productivity Commission's virtual right to repair public hearing on Monday, Weins took the opportunity to draw on specific examples of how some of the largest tech companies are obstructing consumers from a right to repair.

"We've seen manufacturers restrict our ability to buy parts. There's a German battery manufacturer named Varta that sells batteries to a wide variety of companies. Samsung happens to use these batteries in their Galaxy earbuds ... but when we go to Varta and say can we buy that part as a repair part, they'll say 'No, our contract with Samsung will not allow us to sell that.' We're seeing that increasingly," he said. "Apple is notorious for doing this with the chips in their computers. There's a particular charging chip on the MacBook Pro ... there is a standard version of the part and then there's the Apple version of the part that sits very slightly tweaked, but it's tweaked enough that it's only required to work in this computer, and that company again is under contractual requirement with Apple."

He continued, highlighting that a California-based recycler was contracted by Apple to recycle spare parts that were still in new condition. "California Apple stops providing service after seven years, so this was at seven years and Apple have warehouses full of spare parts, and rather than selling that out in the marketplace -- so someone like me who eagerly would've bought them -- they were paying the recycler to destroy them," Wiens said. Weins also pointed to an example involving a Microsoft Surface laptop. "[iFixit] rated it on our repairability score, we normally rate products from one to 10; the Surface laptop got a zero. It had a glued-in battery ... we had to actually cut our way into the product and destroyed it in the process of trying to get inside," he said.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

iFixit CEO Names and Shames Tech Giants For Right To Repair Obstruction More

iFixit CEO Names and Shames Tech Giants For Right To Repair Obstruction

Comments Filter:
  • "A fair field with no favors." Doesn't sound like it when the big guys can gang up and kick your ass out of the market completely. If I'm for any kind of market coercion, then it is common-sense efforts to shield small players from big ones. If we cannot use anti-trust legislation against these guys then what was it made for? Oh yeah, persecuting Rockefeller for getting too rich, I forgot. We can't use it on sacred cows like Apple, I guess.

  • Okay, fine, you want the right to repair. That doesn't mean the manufacturers have to make it easy. Also, right-to-repair doesn't mean right-to-modify.

    • I think the price should be in inverse relation to the repairability.
      If I can't fix it then it isn't worth shit to me and should cost less than say $50. Things that i can't fix are a large liability and a sunk cost. They can keep their junk. Because that's what it is.

      My income is not disposable because my time is not disposable.

    • Re:Doesn't make it easy (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jenningsthecat ( 1525947 ) on Monday July 19, 2021 @08:44PM (#61599437)

      Okay, fine, you want the right to repair. That doesn't mean the manufacturers have to make it easy. Also, right-to-repair doesn't mean right-to-modify.

      The point is that the manufacturers should have to make repair easy, by law if necessary. This isn't just about people's pocketbooks and companies' profits, although I consider that more than sufficient justification, especially given corporations' laughable tax contributions. It's also about horrendous waste of non-renewable resources, pillaging our planet, and criminal concentration of wealth.

      And of course, the "right to modify", being inseparable from the right to own, is inalienable by definition. And the ability to modify is strongly correlated with the ability to repair. And while manufacturers have no obligation to make a product easy to modify, they damned well do have an obligation to make it easy to repair.

      • And of course, the "right to modify", being inseparable from the right to own, is inalienable by definition. And the ability to modify is strongly correlated with the ability to repair. And while manufacturers have no obligation to make a product easy to modify, they damned well do have an obligation to make it easy to repair.

        "Easy to repair" covers a wide range of options. Apple has made teh MBP easy (for them) to repair by essentially making it a modular system where you replace an entire assesmbly, such as upper cover and keyboard if the battery goes bad. That is an "easy" repair. They don't do board level diagnostics and repair, the costs would be way to high. Apple already authorizes 3rd party repairs, and if they sold parts to the general public the costs would likely be prohibitive to the point where repalcing the devi

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Aczlan ( 636310 )

        And of course, the "right to modify", being inseparable from the right to own, is inalienable by definition. And the ability to modify is strongly correlated with the ability to repair.

        Ah, but then they could be accused of making it easy for people to modify their devices and break regulatory limits/bands (see the kerfluffle a few years back with wireless access points).

        Aaron Z

    • Re:Doesn't make it easy (Score:4, Informative)

      by dcw3 ( 649211 ) on Monday July 19, 2021 @09:12PM (#61599495) Journal

      It does mean that they shouldn't be allowed to go out of their way to make it more difficult than necessary though. That's anti-competitive, and monopolistic behavior.

      • It does mean that they shouldn't be allowed to go out of their way to make it more difficult than necessary though. That's anti-competitive, and monopolistic behavior.

        Define "more difficult than necessary." Consumers appear to want thin light weight devices and the way to do that is to remove as much stuff and replace mounts with glue, custom chips to minimize chip count, putting everyhing tightly packed and soldered to a board, etc.; all of which increases the difficulty of repair. One of my earliest laptops had socketed chips and ram so you could actually modify it; of course it was 2" thick and weighed a ton.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by dcw3 ( 649211 )

          There are plenty of obvious examples of companies going out of their way to make it harder. You don't need a definition for that, other than in court.

          If you can present a good reason for making specialized/non-standard cables that only can be bought from your company, great. Otherwise, it shouldn't be allowed.

          Apple for example, has been pulling this shit for decades (and FWIW, I'm a fan of most of their stuff).

          • There are plenty of obvious examples of companies going out of their way to make it harder. You don't need a definition for that, other than in court.

            If you can present a good reason for making specialized/non-standard cables that only can be bought from your company, great. Otherwise, it shouldn't be allowed.

            Apple for example, has been pulling this shit for decades (and FWIW, I'm a fan of most of their stuff).

            In Apple case, the argument is that by requiring certified cables we ensure they will function properly and are safe to use. Specialized connectors allows adding features / capabilities that an industry standard does not have. As an engineer that argument has some merit, given the documented cases of 3rd party cheapo chargers problems. Apple could of used a mirco USB plug but probably would have not used the industry standard line assignments.

            In some cases, I've wondered at non-standard interfaces such

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by dcw3 ( 649211 )

              I've personally modified my own original Mac, Mac512ke, Mac II, and more recent models. They purposely made them difficult to work on for no reason other than to keep the profit for themselves.

              • I've personally modified my own original Mac, Mac512ke, Mac II, and more recent models. They purposely made them difficult to work on for no reason other than to keep the profit for themselves.

                I think Jobs also felt he knew what was best and didn't want people messing with his idea of what was best for users. So while profit maximization may have been one reason there are others ones taht can account for design decisions.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by sjames ( 1099 )

      The manufacturers don't want me to have the right to repair, that doesn't mean they have the right to make it difficult to impossible. Especially when they damage the free market to do it.

  • Designed product flows, which cause things to break right after their warranty expires, as well as artificial barriers to repair things, make damage in many ways: - more precious resources are spent - throw-away mentality multiplies the effect on consumerism - there can be more jobs if goods could be repaired - people can become smarter if they had a chance to repair things IMHO the problem is that nobody wants to start making repairable things, because first-movers [and here I also mean companies, which t

  • I think the main reason for having a broad and deep right to repair, is in case
    of war.

    We have the best government that money can buy, and it has been bought and paid
    for by the same international corporations that oppose our right to repair our
    own property and equipment.

    America is an international business, our leadership is owned by corporations.
    The main product is a place corporations can sell stuff.

    Why do I say extreme corporate greed may be a bad thing? Well
    shockingly, when it destroys our country's abi

  • I do not trust the government to make right-to-repair laws that differentiate between:

    * Replacing the screen on my iPhone

    * Replacing the touch sensor and its associated secure storage on my iPhone, possibly removing security on the phone and my Apple account

    Consider the average tech savvy of a US Congresscritter. Do you believe they have ANY chance of getting the distinction above right?

    If anything, I expect any right-to-repair legislation to INCLUDE parts replacement specifically for government-authorized search and seizure of citizen data - US law enforcement will happily give them the legal language they want.

  • So here's my story: My iPhone X had an aging battery so I took it to the Apple Store because I figured a $60 replacement charge was worth my time.

    First they tried to make me trade in my phone for a newer one. I refused.

    Then they finally went to replace the battery and two hours later told me they couldn't because there was "evidence of water damage"...but they could replace it with the same model for $500. I could see pictures on the rep's tablet so I asked if I could see the moisture damage. She clut

Slashdot Top Deals

No spitting on the Bus! Thank you, The Mgt.

Close