Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop
Nickname:
Password:
Nickname:
Password:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Umm, Apple most definitely does not already do this. Apple fan (not fanboy) here, their repair process is better than most, but it wasn’t until extremely recent that you could order parts rather than repairs, and the official repair process is frequently borked by Apple Stores refusing to do the work. Sending the device off to Apple for repair has never let me down, but I’ve been dicked over repeatedly by Apple Stores that simply don’t want to do a repair, even one that I am willing to pay for. I deal wi
it wasn’t until extremely recent that you could order parts rather than repairs
Yes: Apple already does this. It’s recent that you can order parts, but they had to do that to comply with other right to repair laws so the new California one is nothing new there.
The new bit is that you have to keep a supply of available parts for seven years, but Apple already did that for their own repairs.
Apple stores usually don’t do the work of repairs, unless they’re really simple and software based. There is indeed a generic problem in the Apple Store that the employees there have no idea what you’re talking about and don’t know what to do. Their online and phone support is a lot better, but the policy stated on the Apple Support website is that they provide software updates, support and repair parts, either through Apple or through authorized independent repair facilities until 7 years after the model w
I’m referring to repairs that they DO do, subject to parts availability of course, like battery replacements. I have frequently had battery replacements refused with nebulous reasons. It’d be easier to swallow if they didn’t segway from “We can’t repair this because X” into a sales pitch for new device. These replacements for the same device happen without issue when sent off to the depot under a new ticket.
The boundary between what the stores and depot do is very blurry. I once took in a $35,000 Mac P
I can’t speak for the phones but if you think their laptop repair is good, then you haven’t actually experienced a company that is good.
Apple’s fleece-the-consumer tactic of soldering flash storage prevents then having a good repair system. Companies that have socketed storagecan do next day on site repairs where they come to you and can swap everything up to and including the motherboard. If you call before a certain time you can be back up and running in under 24 hours. If you’re lucky and the machine is
I don’t disagree with the soldering bit, practically speaking though, it doesn’t mean anything to me. My experience with Dell is no different, mail it off and wait for it to come back, turnaround times are similar, and I have enough spares on hand to make repairs non-urgent. If I was inclined, I could more easily self-repair the Dell under a “parts only” regime, but I got better things to do than fix computers. We pay Dell and Apple a lot of money so we don’t have to mess with it.
If I want t

I have enough spares on hand to make repairs non-urgent.
You are not a typical consumer. These laws are not written for you.
It isn’t even better than most. I would argue that it is in fact worse. This legislation is still sorely underwhelming unless it completely addresses artificial crippling of devices when 3rd party components and 3rd party repair shops are ruled out. The only thing that Apple did was stall so they could get crippling software in place that allows then to lock out 3rd parties. Just fixing the devices is not sufficient. The legislation needs to ENFORCE that there is competition in both the parts and the repair
Sold by whom? The vendor or Verizon or on craigslist?
7 years from the initial offering or 7 years from the last date device was sold by the vendor?
The real winner will be lawyers.
The bill itself says 7 years after it is out out of production. I imagine lawyers will still have some billable hours with this:
Notwithstanding any other law, every manufacturer of an electronic or appliance product with a wholesale price to the retailer, or to others outside of direct retail sale, of one hundred dollars ($100) or more, shall make available to owners of the product, service and repair facilities, and service dealers sufficient documentation and functional parts and tools, inclusive of any updates, on fair and reasonable terms, to effect the diagnosis, maintenance, or repair of a product for at least seven years after the last date a product model or type was manufactured, regardless of whether the seven-year period exceeds the warranty period for the product.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca… [ca.gov]
This is pretty standard fare for Apple products, the law seems to have been designed around their support policies.
The biggest problem is going to be software (aka Android OS builds) and what is considered “parts and tools” and “fair and reasonable”. According to the Right-to-Repair movement, parts and tools includes every single chip and thread of wire in a system whereas fair and reasonable means free of charge.
Because the legislators are not complete idiots, and because electronics are not the first items in commerce that have had the issue of third party repair, the bill actually defines what “fair and reasonable” means. The exact wording from the bill:
(4) “Fair and reasonable terms” means each of the following, as applicable:
(A) At costs and terms that are equivalent to the most favorable costs and terms under which the manufacturer offers the part, tool, or documentation to an authorized repair provider, acc
at costs and terms that are equivalent to the most favorable costs
made available by the manufacturer at no charge
reflects the actual cost to the manufacturer
Yeah, that’s not going to fly, basically what they’re saying is that not only does the manufacturer have to provide support at no extra cost, they can’t even recover the overhead that is eliminated when dealing with properly trained large-scale operations.
So basically, what this proposal says is that the manufacturer has to GIVE you the tools FOR FREE a
“except that, when a tool is requested in physical form, a charge may be included for the reasonable, actual costs of preparing and sending the tool.”
So they are talking about software tools and documentation and they can cover overhead for physical tools. Am I going to be that upset about law being too consumer friendly? Companies will have to learn to adapt. Does that mean prices may have to rise to cover this? Maybe, but is that offset by allowing consumers to extend the lifetime of their devices? Time

The bill itself says 7 years after it is out out of production
If the bill doesn’t include software updates (does it?) it’s rather useless, IMHO. Apple is pretty solid about providing updates, for 5 to 6 years (7 is probably a stretch), but most OEMs are not. What good is being able to repair a device filled with security bugs and/or broken features?
The only mention of software is “software or other mechanisms that provision, program, pair a part, provide or calibrate functionality, or perform any other function required to repair the product or part back to fully functional condition, including any updates.”
So updates are probably not included in this. The good I imagine is that it is up to the owner of the device if they want to keep working, even if it’s out of date.
My OG iPad Air is limited to IOS12 but it still serves the limited things I use it
Apple’s policy is 7 years of updates after the last sale of a model. Not uncommon to find these options in server-grade systems and high-end workstations. I know Dell offers this for their desktops/laptops/tablets but often at a cost exceeding the price of the unit.
It’s a moot point for non Apple computers because the OS vendor is independent from the hardware vendor, so as long as they use vaguely standard parts, the hardware will have a long support window.
My thirteen year old ThinkPad is running a, fully patched modern OS with the latest browser. Lenovo provided good Linux support originally and it remains well supported now (I do admit I have not checked of the modem still works).
The machine is likely to get a full 20 years of software support at this rate. I don’
Only Apple does this today when it comes to electronics. Dell, HP etc has 7 year support options at exorbitant prices. But the Samsungs of this world, the truly ‘consumer product’ manufacturers, if it breaks within the warranty period they might replace your device with a refurbished one, but updates are often 2 years maximum after which all parts and updates are considered obsolete.

forces those that make cheaper stuff add costs to make them less competitive.
They can sell the parts for “reasonable terms”, so they can charge enough to cover their costs and even make a profit on the parts.

Your device breaks at 7 years 1 day? Sorry
They have to draw the line somewhere. Seven years is reasonable.
I’ve had my iPhone for nearly that long, and it’s working fine. But when it dies, I’ll replace it rather than repair it.
I skimmed the bill looking at what exceptions are or are not in place. It has exceptions for game consoles and alarm systems. (I can kind of understand the alarm systems: a repair manual might help a robber to disable the alarm system.)
I was initially worried because there was no explicit exemption for small production runs and one-off devices. If I am a hobbyist and I sell a device to a friend, surely I shouldn’t be legally obligated to write up a repair manual and provide parts for 3-7 years! Fortunately, the bill seems to only apply to products “for which the manufacturer makes available tools, parts, and documentation to authorized repair providers”. So it looks like a hobbyist escapes the provisions by simply not having any authorized repair providers. (But what if I promise the friend to whom I sold the device that I’ll fix it if it breaks. Doesn’t that make me an authorized repair provider?)
It’s an interesting question but I imagine an easy way is to set the line if you are incorporated and selling under a business. “Joe Hobbyist” selling a homebuilt device to his buddy obviously can’t be enforced. “Joe Hobbyist LLC” selling dozens of devices to multiple people gets much fuzzier but probably can fly under the radar but an interesting scenario.
That same LLC selling hundreds or thousands of devices and pulling a tidy profit means you’ll probably have to account for this in your pricing.
But what if I promise the friend to whom I sold the device that I’ll fix it if it breaks. Doesn’t that make me an authorized repair provider?
Then don’t do that. If you can’t guarantee parts availability, you shouldn’t be promising you’ll fix it if it breaks. Don’t make promises you’re unable to keep.
It’s unlikely to be a problem in the real world, though, because these things are enforced by complaint. Unless your friend chooses to sue you in small claims court or something, the government will never f
Do you have a Tax ID set up for your business, under which you sold this to a friend? No? You should be good.
It’s a hobby production. Unless you already used “not recommended for new designs” parts, you can just send them the BoM and let them have at it on digikey.
“…require 7 years of pants”. I was then thinking, “wtf did Anthony Weiner do now?”
I too really like it when well-meaning legislation has the perverse effect of further cementing the competitive advantage of large corps who can absorb the added cost imposed by mommy.
The last time I went to a farmer’s market, my local, artisan microwave maker expressed similar concerns regarding this legislation. Sadly, the mom and pop washing machine company went under years ago.
And worse, this may also keep some Chinese mushroom brand appliances from being sold in California. Which would be unfortunate, since my Gabbagabba Homeoooo chest freezer has been rock-solid for the past 3 months (after updating the app on my phone).
well incredibly witty comments aside, you can at least concede that
a) there are still small companies that make electronics and other products
b) they don’t have the same margins as a larger corps
right?

a) there are still small companies that make electronics and other products
Name some that would be negatively impacted by this legislation.
Yes to a, and for most products b. I’ll go a step further in agreeing with you:most people I know replace broken electronics and appliances because of the total repair cost vs new–not the nonavailability of parts.
So I think the primary impact of the law will be an improved secondary market, which will keep better quality devices in use longer, and reduce total consumption of electronic goods (in particular CCC electronics that may be appealing to low-credit/income people).
I am comfortable with “mother” ste

well incredibly witty comments aside, you can at least concede that
a) there are still small companies that make electronics and other products
b) they don’t have the same margins as a larger corps
right?
The only “small” companies I can think of are boutique hifi brands or guitar amplifiers. Maybe the Pine Phone people as well?

I too really like it when well-meaning legislation has the perverse effect of further cementing the competitive advantage of large corps who can absorb the added cost imposed by mommy.
In this case optimizing purely on costs is a case of market failure. I still remember when buying appliances was (nearly) for life and you replaced one not out of necessity, but because the new one offered some new compelling functionality. Today you are kept on a consumption treadmill by appliances that are designed to fail. Sure, they are cheaper to buy, but not when you factor lifetime replacement costs.

Essentially, disposable crap needs to stopped via regulation, as consumers are unable to accurately a
This is actually more of an urban myth and these days truly a guiding ethos of many companies but it is not enforceable law. Now shareholders have a right that the company isn’t intentionally losing money or deliberately destroying value but that’s a case to prove in front of a judge. “Shareholder value” is vague and different shareholders have different values.
As the Supreme Court put it in the Hobby Lobby case:
“Modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the
You are choosing that path by buying cheap appliances.
If you buy light (or heavy, go nuts, I did) commercial ones then not only are they hugely robust but spares will be available for a long time. I bought a commercial microwave. In real terms it cost less than the domestic microwave my mum bought when I was a teenager, but it’s twice as powerful, 3 times the capacity, easier to clean and will have spares available for years and years to come. Honestly it’s awesome, even better than I expected.
Even somethin
The problem is its very hard to tell whats quality. Expensive is not the same as quality, manufacturers have caught on and simply place a logo on the same product and then charge more.
Unless you are an expert, its hard to tell, and perception of quality is more a function of advertising as opposed to quality of product.
That’s true to a quite large extent. However, if you go for commercial kit it’s a different game, doubly so if you can readily find spares for the model you are considering. Unfortunately it doesn’t quite apply uniformly since some of it is too different. But here we are nerds and able to figure out what hardware to buy.
So, I think legislation is the path forwards. Robust, repairable, long lasting kit is accessible to nerds who obsess over that (me), but not for most people.
I’d be curious if this did any fuzzy stuff with software updates. Windows 10/11 isn’t supported that long, and I doubt the embedded android on e.g. samsung fridges is either.
Windows 10 came out in 2015, and will be supported through 2025. That’s 10 years, and 4 years after being discontinued. And if history is any indicator, they’ll probably issue patches for “significant” problems after that.
I think with embedded devices, I don’t expect any company to stay “current”. I expect them to fix something if it’s broken, but that’d be about it.
I imagine a lot of manufacturers will set RRP/MRP to $49.99 or less and the more creative ones may even split devices into bits to sell them.
Ah yes, this tablet is $49.99 but the x required security chips(not included) are $49.98 each.
Apple may have a head start on this with their accessory prices.
Perhaps the bill has clauses in it to prevent this, I would expect at least something about reasonable costs for parts.
It costs money to keep those parts in stock/available. This will just raise prices for everyone. Many pieces of consumer electronics are ‘disposable’ and their price point and quality reflect that – not everyone has money to buy the $300 microwave when a $60 one is available.
Requiring to keep repair documentation and other items available may be fine, since it costs little extra money for the companies. Keeping actual replacement parts available costs money, which makes the products cost more.
The proper way
I think the big idea here is that the marketplace won’t offer $30-per-year-for-2-years microwaves in CA any longer. It’ll have $30-per-year-for-6-years microwaves.
(Baked in there will be a $0.04 extra cost to stock replacement parts, to cover the manufacturer’s expenses.)
There are a lot of ways these issues might get properly fixed and this is the next one being tried out in California.
That wouldn’t help under this law, unless they plan to also stop selling any hardware in California.

That wouldn’t help under this law, unless they plan to also stop selling any hardware in California.
That is why the California Apple Stores are closed and a national store and fulfillment center in Texas is opened. California cannot prevent a citizen from buying something from out of state. Interstate commerce and all that.

but law is still enforcable if its sold to people in california.
Only to companies with a presence in the state. With HQ and retails sales removed from CA, Apple could use subsidiaries to avoid that. Apple HQ (Texas) has two subsidiaries. Apple Sales and Fulfillment (Texas) and Apple R&D (California). So the company doing the sales, and its owner, are not in CA.
Not likely. In fact, Apple endorsed California’s right to repair bill!
7 years is not an arbitrary number. Apple has two lists – “vintage” and “obsolete”. Vintage products are products where they haven’t been sold for 5 years, and while updates and such may no longer be available, parts can be ordered.
After 7 years, the unit goes “obsolete” and parts and service is no longer available.
In other words, it’s no coincidence – this is basically what Apple had been doing all along.
If Apple wanted a bill written by

There are some concessions and potential pitfalls, however. Pricing of parts and tools is left at “fair and reasonable terms.
Here is a question, what are ‘reasonable terms exactly?
Seems that the idea is to fix pricing, this never can work of-course, prices cannot be fixed, if the price falls too low and cannot justify production then the good will not be produced, that’s it.
I can definitely argue that if a product is outdated and hasn’t been produce for a year or more, the production lines have been dismantled and reconfigured. The factory floors are repurposed for other parts for new products, so at that point it would be r
iFixit has -always- been a great site. Not surprised to see them supporting this solution. Making things repairable (as most things were not that long ago) will keep a lot of crap out of landfills and waterways. It will encourage the re-growth of repair businesses, which used to be very common (radio, TV, audio etc.) and employed a lot of newb technicians. This will discourage companies that want to keep milking their customers.
So who cares?
Sure a few farmers do that sort of thing. Most don’t.
My oldest John Deere tractor is nearly 65 years old now, and Deere still sells some parts for it (and no payload files to prevent me from fixing it!). My newest is 9 years old now.
No, not that sort of data collection, I assume they already do that at the NSA’s bidding.
What I’d love to see is some data on how many phones and $50 tchotchkes are actually repaired, and by the vendor or independent shops.
If, after the law has been in effect for five years, less than 1% of products N years old get repaired, can we revisit and perhaps stop requiring parts be stocked? I’d personally prefer a less expensive phone (and stocking parts makes every phone more expensive) than a more repairable one
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
A Luxury Cruise Ship, Stuck Off Greenland’s Coast for 3 Days, Is Pulled Free
Video-Game Company Unity Closes Offices Following Death Threat
“I shall expect a chemical cure for psychopathic behavior by 10 A.M. tomorrow, or I’ll have your guts for spaghetti.” — a comic panel by Cotham

source