Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
EU Businesses Government

EU Prepares 'Right To Repair' Legislation To Fight Short Product Lifespans (bleepingcomputer.com) 190

An anonymous reader writes: The EU is preparing legislation that would legalize a customer's "right to repair," and would force vendors to design products for longer life and easier maintenance, in an effort to combat electronic waste and abusive practices like manufacturers legally preventing users from repairing their devices. The legislation is in its earlier stages of public discussion, but it already has the backing of several EU Members of Parliament, along with support from organizations like Greenpeace.

Currently, in the US only eleven states have similar laws, and they have been adopted after years of public discussions, and only for certain markets, and not for all types of products. It is unclear what leverage the EU will use to force manufacturers to produce longer lasting products, as this would mean lesser profits for big businesses, who often used tactics such as software DRMs, warranty contract lock-ins, and soldering components together, just to avoid users repairing products on their own.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EU Prepares 'Right To Repair' Legislation To Fight Short Product Lifespans

Comments Filter:
  • by Evtim ( 1022085 ) on Monday July 10, 2017 @03:50AM (#54776865)

    While I applaud such measures [as a techno-nerd one of the most infuriating aspects of the economy for me is the enforced obsolescence] I cannot help but wonder - since the whole planet agrees on the basic principles of free market capitalism, which inevitably result in forced obsolescence and a race to the bottom ["best product for the most affordable price' is the same as "worst product for the highest possible price"] why do we then spend absolutely enormous amount of time, money and effort to STOP the system going to where it goes naturally based on its premises.

    What an absurd idea - make the worst and most destructive qualities of humans the most rewarded in the system [greed!], thus creating evolutionary pressure for all of us to become more and more sociopathic [i.e. successful] and then start pushing against the inevitable outcome.

    Why don't we change the system so that it encourages and promotes human survival, procreation and happiness rather than greed and criminal wasting of resources. Ah, I know - the economists told me that the present system reflects exactly human nature [which is flawed, so we can't do jack shit about that - what a fucking LIE this is!] so this is the best of all possible worlds - where the ancestors of those economist set the system 200 years ago to benefit the "haves" and now we call that "natural system"; we claim that it is as immutable as the laws of Nature rather than a scam set up by humans to keep and increase their power.

    'Summary: Humanity collectively opened the shitter above our heads and then stood in the shit rain wondering why it is shit and not honey.....unbelievable!

    • by Actually, I do RTFA ( 1058596 ) on Monday July 10, 2017 @04:09AM (#54776911)

      since the whole planet agrees on the basic principles of free market capitalism,

      Really? European countries are fairly socialist. China is a communist government with a healthy leavening of capitalism. In the middle east, most countries are essentially giant oil companies (that collude in a monopoly) that play dividends to all their citizens.

      I mean, yes, everyone agrees that some free market capitalism in the mix is important. But no one thinks that unadulterated laissez-faire free market capitalism (except about half of America, the half in charge).

      • by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 10, 2017 @04:52AM (#54777007)

        Even America doesn't believe in free market capitalism, judging by its actions. If you truly believed in free market capitalism you wouldn't have telecoms monopolies, utilities monopolies, banks "too big to fail" and so on.

        Perhaps the easiest first step would simply be to require public availability of repair manuals and guaranteed public availability of parts for X amount of time (maybe sector dependent) in order to achieve a CE marking.

        • by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 10, 2017 @07:34AM (#54777345)

          If we truly practiced free market capitalism, we wouldn't had a national telecom system at all.

          Governments wouldn't have forced people to allow telephone poles on their property. To build a local exchange would require negotiating a contract with every single landowner where you needed to place a pole and you'd probably be paying monthly or yearly rent for it if you couldn't sucker the owners into selling rights to you.

          After all those expenses, you'd still only be a local exchange. To connect to others, you'd have to make sure that your equipment is compatible with the other exchanges around you and come up with some sort of agreement on the costs of running lines between the exchanges (and paying off the landowners). On the wild chance that you get past all those hurdles, you'd then have to deal with peering charges for all those connections. Imagine a call from New York to San Francisco... hundreds, if not thousands, of peering charges tacked on by every local exchange in between (free market doesn't mean you get to use other people's equipment for free after all).

          Assuming you pulled all that off, you'd now be the proud owner of a local monopoly. Imagine a competitor trying to enter the market... are you going to let them use your poles or wires? Of course not. They'd have to negotiate for a whole new set of poles and lines and pay the full cost without the hope of a monopoly on customers. And they'll have to negotiate a peering agreement with you so that their customers can call your customers. Unless you're feeling generous and love the idea of giving up your monopoly and sharing your profits with someone else, you've got no incentive to agree to peering. You're the entrenched monopoly, after all, and screwing over competition improves your bottom line.

          So yeah... the nation wide phone system wouldn't exist. Telephones would be little more than a novelty available only in densely populated areas.

          Oh... cell phones, ham radios or other wireless devices? Bwahahahaha.... the government allocats spectrum for them and prosecutes anyone who fucks with it. In the truly free market, you're on your own and any competitor who wants to take down your cell phone business can pay a few teenagers to drive around town in trucks with high powered jamming devices (you can buy one for about $100, though they're very illegal in the US) and boom... unhappy customers abandoning you for your non-jammed competition. All completely legal thanks to the truly free market.

          Free markets always devolve into monopolies. Properly regulated markets are not free, but they also don't allow monopolies and too-big-to-fail companies.

          • 'Enlightened' free market capitalism could tolerate some monopolies. Utilities such as electricity, water, and sewer could be the more efficient means of delivering these goods or services.

            Telephone as a monopoly may have been the best means to develop the ubiquitous network and compatible devices that the POTS offered. Today, however, wireless is where growth and focus are, along with VOIP, which needs no dedicated network but can run on wired and wireless, with no real concern for the underlying media an

        • by Anonymous Coward

          Require appliance companies to label their products in an easily scannable way. Any time one of their products hits a waste transfer station, the appliance company has to pay the waste transfer station a nontrivial disposal fee that is a percentage of their list price. Start with a very high percentage if a product is disposed of in the first year after manufacture and reduce it over time.

          Give them a financial incentive to make their products last longer.

          • All that would lead to is even shittier products costing even more and being even shinier to get people to still buy them.
        • Even America doesn't believe in free market capitalism, judging by its actions

          The free market is a myth. All markets are regulated or rigged in some way or other.

        • "Free market" means your cronies get to do what they want and are exempt from regulation. There really is no such thing as a fair free market free of oversight, there's always someone out there ready to abuse the system in some way (polluting the neighbor's property, restricting market access, etc). So the struggle is to get a government (or other measure of enforcement) that supports you and your friends, and maybe discouraging your competition as a bonus.

      • by dunkelfalke ( 91624 ) on Monday July 10, 2017 @07:25AM (#54777329)

        Neither is correct. Euroean countries are fairly social-democratic, not socialist (workers own the means of production). And as for China, communist government is an oxymoron. Even the USSR realised that and called themselves socialist (resulting in the citizens of many former socialist countries receiving a share of the state owned enterprises after the breakup/independence), with communism being a long-term goal.

      • Europe is more like "capitalism with a human face", in other words social democracy.

        • The US could have been that way, but there was an active marketing/propaganda effort against trade unions and social institutions, which accelerated after the Russian revolution by linking it to communism. Despite so many decades having passed there is still a knee jerk reaction against the words "social" or "union". Certainly while growing up it wat he belief of many that trade unions were just a gateway drug to full blown takeover by the commies.

      • China is a communist government with a healthy leavening of capitalism.

        China's more like an ultra-capitalist oligarchy with some communist bumper stickers on it.

    • by Gravis Zero ( 934156 ) on Monday July 10, 2017 @04:34AM (#54776961)

      I cannot help but wonder - since the whole planet agrees on the basic principles of free market capitalism...

      You have made a very incorrect assumption.

      • On a national political level, very nearly the whole planet does subscribe to those principles, even the Scandinavian countries and arguably even Chavista Venezuela. The only clear exceptions are Cuba and North Korea.

    • Why don't we change the system so that it encourages and promotes human survival, procreation and happiness rather than greed and criminal wasting of resources.

      Now where's the profit in that?

    • What an absurd idea - make the worst and most destructive qualities of humans the most rewarded in the system [greed!], thus creating evolutionary pressure for all of us to become more and more sociopathic [i.e. successful] and then start pushing against the inevitable outcome.

      On the other hand, it is pretty clever to find a way to use that destructive quality to keep the same destructive quality at bay. It's the buyers greed to get things cheep vs the sellers greed to max the selling price that doesn't keep the system in an exact balance, but slows down the race to the button so much, during the last few hundred years, it almost seemed stable, and that's the actual remarkable thing - requires only a minimum of external regulations.

      Capitalism is going down - but slowly. Like the

    • by jandersen ( 462034 ) on Monday July 10, 2017 @05:25AM (#54777077)

      While I applaud such measures [as a techno-nerd one of the most infuriating aspects of the economy for me is the enforced obsolescence] I cannot help but wonder - since the whole planet agrees on the basic principles of free market capitalism, which inevitably result in forced obsolescence and a race to the bottom ["best product for the most affordable price' is the same as "worst product for the highest possible price"] why do we then spend absolutely enormous amount of time, money and effort to STOP the system going to where it goes naturally based on its premises.

      Hear! Hear! This sort of crap has been going on for far too long - there seems to be, maybe not an actual conspiracy, but something that looks a lot like a universal acceptance that this is the way to make business, from the invention of the razor with disposable blades onwards. However, there is also a strong and possibly growing trend the opposite way, of people tinkering and quite often re-discovering the "old ways": learning how to hone and use a straight razor, or learning woodworking without electric tools etc; and in the process discovering how little actual value is added by the supposedly indispensable, modern tools. Linux, FOSS and RaspberryPi are other examples of the same: maybe people are sick of being powerless and dependent on buying shitty products when it is so obvious that they are being defrauded, in effect.

      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        This is called hypernormalization. It happened in the USSR, and it happened in modern western politics. People know the way things are is wrong, that the system is broken, but they can't imagine living any other way so they perpetuate it.

        The Soviet system is corrupt, but they couldn't imagine any other way of living.

        Politicians are all corrupt liars, but since they are all that way we might as well vote for the demagogue we like the best.

        Capitalism produces bad results, but communism is apparently the only

        • The Soviet system is corrupt, but they couldn't imagine any other way of living.

          Who are “they” exactly? Even on paper the nomenklatura was working towards communism (they just had no idea how to get there). Even those not in power had in their living memories times of democracies and nationalisms.

          Capitalism produces bad results, but communism is apparently the only other option and is reportedly terrible

          Then be so kind and tell us about those other options. Seriously. We have had feudalism, mercantilism, autarky, collectivism, communism, wild capitalism, state capitalism, regulated capitalism, libertarianism. None of these seems to “work”.

          • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

            Socialism and regulated capitalism seems to work reasonably well.

            • Socialism and regulated capitalism seems to work reasonably well.

              Sorry, my bad. When I hear “the west”, I assume it's Scandinavia, UK, France, Germany, which is more of a mixed bad.

              • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

                With the exception of the UK, where else is doing better? Certainly not the US. Canada maybe?

                • Hmm, “doing well” is a vague term. I would describe those as having future prospects open for the inhabitants, which roughly means education, nature protection, reasonably stable political environment and wealth. On these counts Northern Europe (Iceland, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Finland and Estonia) are going pretty well. If Russia invaded, I would certainly also consider Netherlands, Ireland, UK, France, Germany, Switzerland and Austria as go to places.
          • What said any system is supposed to work? Where is it said humans as a species is entitled to live forever? The dinosaurs didn't rape the planet in the name of greed, yet they got wiped out. Humans, for all their alleged intelligence, still continue to shit where they eat. We're doomed. Its not a question of if, just when.
    • I agree with every single thing you said, and would like to add the following observations:

      ...why do we then spend absolutely enormous amount of time, money and effort to STOP the system going to where it goes naturally based on its premises.

      The simple answer is that individual citizens (a) have let themselves be hoodwinked into believing that our current system of economics is somehow 'natural' or 'inevitable', (b) thereby managing to lose sight of the facts that there are alternatives, and that by collective action we can bring them into being. For a sobering and scary look at one of the key methods used to turn people into sheeple, read John Taylor Ga

    • While I applaud such measures [as a techno-nerd one of the most infuriating aspects of the economy for me is the enforced obsolescence] I cannot help but wonder - since the whole planet agrees on the basic principles of free market capitalism, which inevitably result in forced obsolescence and a race to the bottom ["best product for the most affordable price' is the same as "worst product for the highest possible price"] why do we then spend absolutely enormous amount of time, money and effort to STOP the system going to where it goes naturally based on its premises.

      The problem in capitalism that this kind of regulation is trying to address is the ability to unload difficult-to-evaluate costs onto the general public. Generating twice as much waste doesn't cost the manufacturers anything, so there's no incentive for them to minimize it. One of the basic assumptions of capitalism is that the price of a product reflects the cost to produce it. Regulations like this attempt to make the cost more accurate.

    • by prefec2 ( 875483 )

      Because unregulated capitalism destroys nature, social structures and ruins culture. Therefore, we apply new rules here and there until we found out a way of economics which does not have these issues and still support freedom, equality and social support.

    • Mod parent to +5! A post for the ages!

  • by robbak ( 775424 ) on Monday July 10, 2017 @03:56AM (#54776877) Homepage
    The main impediment to repair of electronics is simply lack of information - that schematics and board overlays are simply unavailable. Without them, a repair person is flying blind. With them, they can determine the fault by measuring voltage rails around the board, and the repair is often replacing jelly bean parts that are worth pennies - or just bypassing broken board connections. The other thing we lack is source code. manufacturers abandon products as soon as they are sold, and withhold source code (as well as locking the device up with code signing) so users cannot fix their bugs. 'Right to repair' legislation should address these problems first.
    • by Zocalo ( 252965 )
      All valid points that should be absolutely be part of the legislation but, even if all that information was readily available, it doesn't help with some of the latest trends that are obstructing efficient and cost effective repairs. Firstly, the use of snap-fix connectors to assemble plastic components that are almost certainly break when you try and tease them back apart, requiring the replacement of another component - most often some form of chassis to which other components are fixed, increasing labour
    • by fisted ( 2295862 )

      Then again, it almost always boils down to filter caps on the PSU. Sure it would be cool to have documentation, but for this common sort of repair I'm okay with flying blind.

    • by v1 ( 525388 ) on Monday July 10, 2017 @07:58AM (#54777411) Homepage Journal

      I don't think it's nearly as cut-and-dry as you think it is. Things like schematics and source code are only useful to a very small percentage of consumers, let alone actual technicians. Most of the time only high dollar items will ever be worth repairing. What good is a schematic to repair a $20 device, when a an hour of a repair tech's time is $50? And really, source code? Try to find a shop you can take something to in order to have it reprogrammed. And then how much is several hours of a coder's time going to cost you?

      A lot of this issue is more about the legal aspect, where companies abuse laws like DMCA and Copyright to help lawyers make repairs and 3rd party parts and services unlawful. It's the "razor blade game" where you are legally forced to buy their blades. It's easy for service parts to be that way simply because an electronic daughterboard or ECU is pretty easily seen as patentable, and the program that runs on it is copyrighted. Black-box development of say a replacement ECU is possible, but expensive, and then they try as above to abuse laws like DMCA to keep you buried armpit-deep in lawyers and sue you into leaving the market, whether or not they've actually found something legally justifiable to keep you out. They usually have a three step plan: 1: Sue you. if you win, 2: Sue you again. If you win (and assuming you still have enough money to keep paying your lawyers) then 3: buy you out and shutter your business. We see this time and time again. They need to address this "assault by attorney" problem head-on.

      Although a lot of technical people wish they could repair things more easily, the truth is that a lot of consumers aren't going to be willing to do what it takes (or COSTS) to repair things. I've got a drop-in charger for a radio here that I've been fiddling with on-and-off for weeks, and haven't been able to figure out. I had no schematic so I wrote one up. All the parts are obtainable. Haven't been able to figure out what's wrong with it yet though. What's my time worth? I suppose I'd have been a lot smarter to just have gotten online and bought a new one by now. A lot of things simply aren't worth anyone's time to fix, even if they have all the ideal support. And it's not just a matter of the manufacturer not making it repairable - a lot of the time it doesn't even matter because even with ideal circumstances that by its nature it's going to be cheaper to make a new one than fix your broken one.

      And if you're going to try to force them to make a better product, that's going to be a huge uphill battle. Manufacturing in the consumer market is a race-to-the-bottom where suppliers like China are doing their best to provide products at the minimum (and ABSOLUTE minimum) acceptable quality and durability the consumer will accept, in order to provide it at the lowest possible price. That makes forced-durability a tug-of-war, and one that will have boundaries and limits that are impossible to clearly define in any standard way.

      Look at a laptop computer nowadays. One board. Memory and even sometimes the SSD are soldered down. Unquestionably the lowest cost way to manufacture it. Display panel is one integrated piece, no separate backlight or even LCD controller, it's all glued into the top shell along with the camera. Again arguably the lowest cost way to make it. That leaves the top case with its keyboard, trackpad, and speakers, all manufactured as one piece. If you're thinking demanding the schematic to the board is going to get you anywhere, you're insane. How about the camera being replaceable? No, the consumer demands low cost and a thin, light design, and so the camera is going to have to stay glued into the top. The only point of leverage here that makes sense is to somehow cap the cost of the parts. An $800 laptop should not have a total cost to assemble from parts of $1500. If anything, the parts aren't assembled and that should result in a LOWER cost for sum of parts than for completed product. $800 laptop? Then $750

      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        Source code would let us fix things like security issues or Y2K style time bombs, and once fixed the firmware update should be relatively easy to install.

        Schematics are definitely less useful now due to very high levels of integration. Take a look at the Raspberry Pi schematic, it's basically one chip and some connectors. Tiny bit of trivial power supply stuff. However, a lot of stuff could be fixed if parts were available, even if the parts were on the level of whole PCB assemblies or proprietary chips. Th

    • Address them at the same time. Basically put in a solid right to repair with legal teeth, and then use that as a lever to require documentation and relevant source code to be made available. (Think of how constitutional rights have pushed things around in the US. An EU-wide 'constitutional right to repair' would be a major stepping stone, since the market is large enough to be worth it for a lot of companies.)

    • also lack of software updates (some make you paid big $ for them) others sue to shutdown emulators / shutdown places that host roms / software / manual scans or free.

      What gives some holding corp that now owns rights to force you to re buy the software you own?? Just think if EA said you must re buy our old games for the right to run them in dos box.

  • Like many people I have been plagued with some devices going belly up suspiciously close after the warranty period expiry
    So I am all for a right to repair, but a design for easier maintenance may be difficult to enforce because it can go against other aims of the product.
    For example, lots of functionality could be in a set of custom surface mounted chips. There is nothing wrong with smds and they can make designs more compact (usually desirable), but they sure are difficult to troubleshoot and replace if
    • by idji ( 984038 )
      They can make the plans for the SMDs available and/or make them available as spare parts.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Opportunist ( 166417 )

      As far as it needs to go to make repairing possible.

      So Europe's phones will be half a millimeter thicker than the phones in the rest of the world? Cry me a river.

  • Greenpeace? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    along with support from organizations like Greenpeace.

    If Greenpeace supports it, then I better take a closer look first.

    Too often, they did things purely for PR purpose and would do more harm than good.

    • by dave420 ( 699308 )

      This measure would obviously reduce the amount of electronic waste. No need to get all paranoid.

  • I am sceptical (Score:2, Insightful)

    by jawtheshark ( 198669 ) *
    I'm sceptical. One of their main examples is the cellphone. The problem with the celphone is that it's a bad example. Cellphones become obsolete due to software, not hardware. A typical iPhone can last up to 5 years (I still use an iPhone 5, not 5C, not 5S, 5). Changing batteries is 49€ at a local phone repair shop. It's no big deal. I know the support for that phone is going to stop around the next apple conference. However, in the cellphone world, this longevity is unheard of. This is because
  • No problem (Score:5, Funny)

    by Chrisq ( 894406 ) on Monday July 10, 2017 @05:53AM (#54777125)
    Send all the unrepairable junk to the UK. They will be desperate for any trade deal.
  • The EU already has mandatory warranties, when a product is sold to a private consumer.

    The minimum is two years, but there is a catch:
    After six months, the burden of proof shifts from the seller to the buyer. In many cases, that means YOU have now to prove that you did not mishandle the product. Make that easier for the consumer, and perhaps extend the two years too. A lot of companies will now have to up their standard of quality.

  • by houghi ( 78078 ) on Monday July 10, 2017 @06:53AM (#54777263)

    When I worked at a major electronic company in Belgium, the warranty period went from 1 to 2 years. We also sold extended warranties and that made a nice sum. When we went from 1 to 2 years, that would mean the following:
    1) More repairs done during the warranty period
    2) Less sales in warranties as people will think 2 years might be enough.
    So I asked the CEO if this was a burden and he said no. The reason as that we knew exactly how much it would cost and the price was adapted accordingly (I believe an increase of 1% or less).

    So what will happen is that the prices will slightly go up, so the companies will need to make up in loss for a tiny bit. Not even enough to really notice. If this means I get a better product that can be used for longer, I have no problem that the government "forces" me to pay a bit more.

    It is a bit like paying extra for a red triangle in your car. It is a small extra cost required by law to have, but in the end it is better, even if I (hopefully) never need to use it.

  • Not Lean (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 10, 2017 @07:16AM (#54777311)

    As someone who works in implementing lean practices, this is a terrible approach. There is a cost to making something user repairable. Extra connectors, new interfaces, room for accessing subassemblies (which increases overall size), added thickness to support thread engagement of screws. If there isn't a mandatory recycling program (i.e. manufacturer has to buy back failed or obsolete or unwanted product), then we're just going to create more waste.

    Even with a strong recycling program, this is not a win unless a large number of customers *actually* repair their devices instead of buying the new shiny version. How do we know that this isn't creating a cost for all customers and wasted energy (more material) to appease a vocal minority of customers many of whom won't actually repair their devices?

    The EU needs to figure out a way to improve this iteratively by making smaller, incremental changes and seeing if customers respond. For example, find the most common reasons phones get tossed out and address those - battery, screen, and phone body are obvious candidates for replacement. This gets say 80% of the issues addressed for minimal cost. Then move on to bigger problems.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      I've worked with your "lean practices" before. It's not lean, it's cutting to the bone. You wouldn't believe the shit I've seen them go through to save a penny. Add to that the aggressive "F U consumer" attitude. Deliberately making things non-repairable so they the consumer MUST buy a replacement. ZOMG added thickness for screws! What ever shall we do? Everything MUST be as thin as paper because...I don't know why really.

      Oh, so devices will cost a few cents more so that we can repair them? Gosh, w

    • Re:Not Lean (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Monday July 10, 2017 @10:16AM (#54778071)

      First of all, cost means nothing. Nothing at all. Take any phone you want. Now try to tell me with a straight face that the cost to make it has ANYTHING AT ALL to do with the price the customer has to pay. Try it and I'll yell BULLSHIT at you before you're done. Because it is.

      Cost has literally nothing to do with the final price of a product. Cost determines whether a product is made, for it will not be produced if the cost outgrows the potential selling price, but that's it. Do you really want to tell me the iPhone would get a cent cheaper if it could be made for 10 bucks less?

      The price the customer has to pay is a careful calculation of the profit "sweet spot". Where is the maximum of profit_per_item*items_sold? That's the question. You really want to convince anyone that the extra buck it costs to make it repairable would change that by even that buck? I call bullshit.

      And thickness: Newsflash, nobody gives a shit how thick your phone is. If anything, it might actually survive being slipped into a pocket again if it's thicker than the average slice of tinfoil again.

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      The EU isn't just making repairs easier, it is making short product lifespans unprofitable. For example, they are considering making appliance manufacturers state the Mean Time Before Failure (MTBF) of various components, particularly the one with the lowest value. If consumers can see that a fridge with an MTBF of 5 years is only â20 cheaper than one with an MTBF of 10 years, they will likely pick the latter one.

      By putting the number on the box, suddenly it becomes a stat that consumers can easily com

      • by gweihir ( 88907 )

        Exactly. And the manufacturers that lie will find themselves facing a rather large fine and pretty bad publicity. Will take a while, but I think this will actually fix the issue.

  • Will this mean, we get replaceable batteries back on phones.
    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      I hope so. I currently have them (BB Z10) and I will insist on them for the replacement when that phone breaks down. As I have no apps on it and a spare and 5 spare batteries (very cheap on ebay ;-) that may take a while though.

  • would force vendors to design products for longer life and easier maintenance

    War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. Forcing is good.

    • by mvdwege ( 243851 )

      Yes, it's really so bad society tries to force you not to kill people randomly.

      Fucking libertards.

      • by mi ( 197448 )

        Yes, it's really so bad society tries to force you not to kill people randomly.

        Killing people is wrong. Making devices, that other people buy voluntarily is not.

  • Companies ripping off customers because the customers cannot tell something is going to break down after 2.5 years (2 years mandatory warranty in the EU) is just completely unacceptable. Sure, I personally have a policy to never buy again from anybody that does this to me, and that has worked pretty well so far, although I have had to amend it to "for a few years". (Currently on my shit-list: Netgear, Asus, Seagate permanently, Enermax for bad PSU fans.) But ordinary people are basically getting screwed ove

  • I can't replace CPU/RAM/HDD on my MBP when it fails...

    Though I have no interest going back to the days where all the components were pluggable and I had a 10lb laptop.

    Why only phones and tech? I can resole a pair of leather shoes, but my sneakers, I cannot get resoled? What gives Nike?

  • and ultrasonic welding if they feel like being a real cunt

Basic is a high level languish. APL is a high level anguish.

Working...