I deal with right to repair laws as a hardware architect.
Integrated stuff lasts longer and is cheaper but is harder to repair when it does break.
When a consumer repairs our stuff and then it explodes because they didn’t torque it to spec, we get blamed.
If you want something that lasts forever and is easy to repair and has all the features you want, it will look like a Russian tank and cost three times as much.
Integrated stuff lasts longer and is cheaper but is harder to repair when it does break.
So long as it's designed this way legitimately because it is cheaper and lasts longer, that is fine. It seems that too many companies are designing things intentionally to limit their repairability.
When a consumer repairs our stuff and then it explodes because they didn't torque it to spec, we get blamed.
By who? And how is this different from all the decades in the past with the same issues? People have been working on their own cars that literally run via controlled explosions and this problem of DIYers doing dangerous repairs is minimal.
Lasts forever and is easy to repair and has all the features you want, it will look like a Russian tank
This is bullshit. An 80s Japanese car lasts forever and is easy to repair, but doesn't look like a Russian tank. It also has all the features I want, but I could see wanting some more modern features. But these modern features could easily be integrated into the existing design without making it look like a Russian tank.
The same goes for phones. Older smart phones were easy to repair and had the features we want, but didn't look like a Russian tank. Sure, they weren't as slim, but "Russian tank" is a bit of a hyperbole. I don't think anyone actually cares about how slim their phone is, especially when they're putting it in a bulky "drop proof" case anyway. It's just marketing that tells us we want that.
Most of those modern features are required by the government. Emissions controls, airbags, backup cameras, on and on and on. The electronic complexity of cars has gone up 10000x since 1980, and a good 70% of that is due to government regulation. We have to integrate it and make it non individually repairable otherwise it would be a repairable yet hideously unreliable and expensive pile of shit.
I highly disagree. The government does not require anything that cannot be made in a cheap, repairable, and still attractive looking manner.
The electronic complexity of cars hasn't gone up "70%" due to government regulation.
We managed to switch from carbs to EFI while still retaining a high degree of repairability. The electronic complexity of cars then went up infinitely (from nearly zero electronics to a computer controlling the engine), yet the cars were still very repairable. Sure, there were people complaining at the time, because it was new and there was a learning curve, but parts were available, and we mechanics/DIYers weren't arbitrarily locked out.
As time went on, that repairability waned, primarily due to artificial means.
Meanwhile, for the combine that just broke down for the hundredth time, my husband's boss must pay yet another $2k to have yet another young book-learned idiot come "fix" it. He can't figure out whats wrong, doesn't fix anything, but still gets paid.
If what’s broken is in the emissions controls or engine management, understand that we get loads of government pressure to NOT make it easy for people to repair those things as repairable means hackable. ECU tunes and software DEF deletes all arose because we wanted to allow people to repair shit and as a side effect people could delete the EPA mandated emissions controls; the EPA sued us so we blocked it, making it unrepairable by the consumer.
I deal with right to repair laws as a hardware architect.
Integrated stuff lasts longer and is cheaper but is harder to repair when it does break.
When a consumer repairs our stuff and then it explodes because they didn’t torque it to spec, we get blamed.
If you want something that lasts forever and is easy to repair and has all the features you want, it will look like a Russian tank and cost three times as much.
So long as it's designed this way legitimately because it is cheaper and lasts longer, that is fine. It seems that too many companies are designing things intentionally to limit their repairability.
By who? And how is this different from all the decades in the past with the same issues? People have been working on their own cars that literally run via controlled explosions and this problem of DIYers doing dangerous repairs is minimal.
This is bullshit. An 80s Japanese car lasts forever and is easy to repair, but doesn't look like a Russian tank. It also has all the features I want, but I could see wanting some more modern features. But these modern features could easily be integrated into the existing design without making it look like a Russian tank.
The same goes for phones. Older smart phones were easy to repair and had the features we want, but didn't look like a Russian tank. Sure, they weren't as slim, but "Russian tank" is a bit of a hyperbole. I don't think anyone actually cares about how slim their phone is, especially when they're putting it in a bulky "drop proof" case anyway. It's just marketing that tells us we want that.
“ I could see wanting some more modern features.”
Most of those modern features are required by the government. Emissions controls, airbags, backup cameras, on and on and on. The electronic complexity of cars has gone up 10000x since 1980, and a good 70% of that is due to government regulation. We have to integrate it and make it non individually repairable otherwise it would be a repairable yet hideously unreliable and expensive pile of shit.
I highly disagree. The government does not require anything that cannot be made in a cheap, repairable, and still attractive looking manner.
The electronic complexity of cars hasn't gone up "70%" due to government regulation.
We managed to switch from carbs to EFI while still retaining a high degree of repairability. The electronic complexity of cars then went up infinitely (from nearly zero electronics to a computer controlling the engine), yet the cars were still very repairable. Sure, there were people complaining at the time, because it was new and there was a learning curve, but parts were available, and we mechanics/DIYers weren't arbitrarily locked out.
As time went on, that repairability waned, primarily due to artificial means.
Meanwhile, for the combine that just broke down for the hundredth time, my husband's boss must pay yet another $2k to have yet another young book-learned idiot come "fix" it. He can't figure out whats wrong, doesn't fix anything, but still gets paid.
If what’s broken is in the emissions controls or engine management, understand that we get loads of government pressure to NOT make it easy for people to repair those things as repairable means hackable. ECU tunes and software DEF deletes all arose because we wanted to allow people to repair shit and as a side effect people could delete the EPA mandated emissions controls; the EPA sued us so we blocked it, making it unrepairable by the consumer.