this post was submitted on 27 Mar 2024
947 points (99.4% liked)

Technology

59534 readers
3135 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] postnataldrip@lemmy.world 116 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (3 children)

the pairing restriction would "undermine the security, safety, and privacy of Oregonians by forcing device manufacturers to allow the use of parts of unknown origin in consumer devices."

If only there were options that would encourage the use of safe, genuine parts.

[–] Zachariah@lemmy.world 75 points 7 months ago (1 children)

What, like companies selling high quality, reasonably priced parts?

[–] rockSlayer@lemmy.world 62 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

My favorite part of the MN right to repair bill is that it requires OEM parts/software/schematics to be offered to consumers at the lowest possible price, including any rebates, sales, deals, etc. It's not quite an "at cost" situation, but it's probably about as close as you can get without crossing that line

[–] sramder@lemmy.world 22 points 7 months ago (2 children)

It sounds good, but that’s enough wiggle room to drive a truck full of money through. Even “at cost” has been abused pretty badly.

[–] rockSlayer@lemmy.world 10 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

Yea, I agree. I think these bills should require the maximum cost to be cost of manufacture at the date of engineering; i.e. a part designed in 2008 can not cost more than the materials to make it and it must keep that price for as long as it is used.

But progress is progress, we'll get there eventually as long as we keep up the political pressure.

Edit: please read the spirit in that example rather than to the letter. There's a lot of nuance that I just skimmed over, and that's because I don't want to write the bill.

[–] naonintendois@programming.dev 9 points 7 months ago (3 children)

The issue with that is it leaves no room for paying the engineers who actually designed the device. The cost of designing the parts is really expensive. I have no issue with a small markup. I definitely agree though that the costs shouldn't be so absurdly prohibitive to repair though.

[–] douglasg14b@lemmy.world 7 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Don't forget the actual cost of manufacturing. The building, the workers, the people working behind the scenes on finance or logistics, or manufacturing details...etc

Manufacturing takes a lot of people on a lot of different levels not only to get it up and running but to keep it running and that's expensive.

Tooling for manufacturing is also insanely expensive

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] sramder@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

Even better. I thought we were just talking about the cost to provide the repair information, which should be free after so many years of shenanigans.

Good points about parts cost/availability. Hopefully ORs bill keeps costs down with the threat of competition.

[–] PriorityMotif@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

That's what the auto industry does. They have to sell you access to their system to allow third parties to program modules, but that cost can be excessive, especially if a small shop only needs to program one module in a blue moon.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] stinerman@midwest.social 12 points 7 months ago

The "undermine the security, safety, and privacy of Oregonians by forcing device manufacturers to allow the use of parts of unknown origin in consumer devices" line is the same reasoning used by AT&T back in the old days as to why you couldn't buy your own phone or use a dial-up modem.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] fiercekitten@lemm.ee 92 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Parts pairing is prohibited only on devices sold in 2025 and later. And there are carve-outs for certain kinds of electronics and devices, including video game consoles, medical devices, HVAC systems, motor vehicles, and—as with other states—"electric toothbrushes."

What’s a good-faith argument for exempting these devices? Or was it simply successful lobbying in protecting corporate interests.

[–] Ottomateeverything@lemmy.world 71 points 7 months ago (5 children)

I could see an argument about medical devices, HVAC, and vehicles... But I don't think I'd agree with them. Except maybe medical.

Consoles and toothbrushes though? What the fuck?

[–] Melt@lemm.ee 22 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I guess console because they want the whole thing intact to enforce DRM?

[–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 19 points 7 months ago (36 children)

I don't see any argument for vehicles, tbh. HVAC tinkering is almost exclusively high voltage so that makes just a little sense, don't want people swapping a 350 volt AC capacitor with a 250 volt DC capacitor and having it blow up, but Vehicles means a manufacturer can do everything imaginable to limit part availability and kill aftermarket parts purely for profits.

load more comments (36 replies)
[–] brsrklf@jlai.lu 14 points 7 months ago

Good thing part pairing doesn't exist for the Switch.

Mine is the Ship of Theseus at that point.

[–] oo1@kbin.social 10 points 7 months ago (2 children)

For toothbrushes, are they worried repair won't re-seal it effectively so make it unsuitable for use in the wet environment?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] altima_neo@lemmy.zip 7 points 7 months ago (2 children)
[–] Ottomateeverything@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago (11 children)

I mean, I don't want the thing supplying the air I'm breathing to accidentally not burn all the gas and lead to carbon monoxide poisoning etc.... Things like the ductwork and shit, for sure, but not like, a burner.

[–] oatscoop@midwest.social 7 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The great irony is it's frequently the "ductwork" that's the problem: plugged or badly installed exhaust pipes, which the manufacture has no control over. The rest are the appliance itself wearing out or failing with no warning.

I've repaired furnaces myself several times including replacing burners and exhaust fans -- it isn't rocket science. It's no different than working on any other "dangerous" thing like a car. If someone somehow manages to fuck up so badly it hurts or kills someone that's on them.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] tyler@programming.dev 20 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The goal of the bill was to get something with teeth passed. Fighting every lobby at once would be impossible, so they leave those devices out of it and will now be able to work on different laws for those things. At least that’s what I read they’re doing for the John Deere stuff at least. The legislators know it’s going to be a difficult battle, so they segmented the law to make it so that a failure in one spot wouldn’t cause a loss everywhere.

[–] Aylex@lemmy.ml 4 points 7 months ago

Heh. Teeth.

[–] pmmeyourtits@ani.social 57 points 7 months ago (2 children)

GET FUCKED VOLKSWAGEN YOU COCKSUCKERS

[–] atrielienz@lemmy.world 47 points 7 months ago (3 children)

Motor vehicles are exempt and the law doesn't affect anything until 2025.

[–] pmmeyourtits@ani.social 35 points 7 months ago (1 children)
[–] sarchar@programming.dev 18 points 7 months ago

You didn't think the law was for you/us, did you?

[–] Raiderkev@lemmy.world 9 points 7 months ago

Lol, of course.

[–] JigglySackles@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago

..... MOTHERFUCKER. Just can't have anything fuckin nice.

[–] Sweetpeaches69@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Wait, what's wrong with VW?

[–] pmmeyourtits@ani.social 24 points 7 months ago (1 children)

VW does parts pairing. It resulted in me having to get a new vehicle when my steering wheel controls and air ag stopped functioning. Turns out you have to program the clockspring with the old clockspring and bringing it to VW resulted in a 350$ charge for them to say "we can't fix this".

Fuck VW.

[–] Rediphile@lemmy.ca 8 points 7 months ago (7 children)

Dealerships are literally the worst place to take a vehicle for a repair. They are in the car selling business, not the car fixing business.

[–] pmmeyourtits@ani.social 5 points 7 months ago

I brought it there after bringing it to my preferred auto shop. Guy did everything in the book with me there and told "yeah sorry man, you're gonna have to bring it to VW" after we watched the programmer failed multiple times.

[–] redfox@infosec.pub 3 points 7 months ago

This isn't necessarily the case anymore. They realized they could charge more money after all this parts pairing and proprietary stuff started.

Dealerships can make more money from repairs than selling. Especially if sales margin is lower due to online competitors selling cars cheaper.

This bill attacks one of the things preventing cheaper repairs and shops from helping .

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 48 points 7 months ago

HP screaming

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 40 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The law, like those passed in New York, California, and Minnesota, will require many manufacturers to provide the same parts, tools, and documentation to individuals and repair shops that they provide to their own repair teams.

I'm sensing downsizing of "repair teams" in the not so distant future, with calls for repair being forwarded to sales.

[–] VinnyDaCat@lemmy.world 6 points 7 months ago

This. It sounds great, but realistically companies will just control the supply of repair materials and scalp us that way instead.

[–] sramder@lemmy.world 39 points 7 months ago

I’m waiting for Apple to announce they are pulling out of Oregon 😂 [^1]

[^1]: Also the impending injunction 😒

[–] muntedcrocodile@lemm.ee 11 points 7 months ago

I wonder what Louis Rossmann has to say about this.

[–] bcron@lemmy.world 8 points 7 months ago

Next up: printer ink??

[–] dog_@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago
[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 4 points 7 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


Oregon Governor Tina Kotek today signed the state's Right to Repair Act, which will push manufacturers to provide more repair options for their products than any other state so far.

The law, like those passed in New York, California, and Minnesota, will require many manufacturers to provide the same parts, tools, and documentation to individuals and repair shops that they provide to their own repair teams.

“By eliminating manufacturer restrictions, the Right to Repair will make it easier for Oregonians to keep their personal electronics running," said Charlie Fisher, director of Oregon's chapter of the Public Interest Research Group (PIRG), in a statement.

Apple opposed the Oregon repair bill for its parts-pairing ban.

John Perry, a senior manager for secure design at Apple, testified at a February hearing in Oregon that the pairing restriction would "undermine the security, safety, and privacy of Oregonians by forcing device manufacturers to allow the use of parts of unknown origin in consumer devices."

According to Consumer Reports, which lobbied and testified in support of Oregon's bill, the repair laws passed in four states now cover nearly 70 million people.


The original article contains 311 words, the summary contains 185 words. Saved 41%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

load more comments
view more: next ›