Comment by OrwellianChild
4 years ago
I understand this thread is about "repairability" of different product designs, and there are definitely arguments on both sides of that issue that are valid...
I just want to make sure you're not confusing "repairability" with Right to Repair... R2R is not asking for changes to product design - only that replacement parts and documentation are made available in a compulsory way.
How long should a company like apple that designs its own SoCs have to continue manufacturing replacement ones? That's not cheap - remember phones are only at the prices they are because they're manufactured in millions - how big do you think the market would be?
How long should production lines be kept producing out of date products?
Lots of open ended questions here that I'm not sure how to interpret the motivation for...
How long should a company like GM that designs its own engines have to continue manufacturing replacement ones? That's not cheap... (etc.)
Thinking about a mature market where we do have right to repair is a good test of these questions and helps reveal the hidden complexities. GM makes replacement parts for a while. A thriving non-OEM market persists long after the manufacturer ceases making more.
This is distinctly different from the status quo in Apple-land, where they prohibit partners like Texas Instruments from manufacturing or selling units to anyone but Apple.
Note also that there is no legislation in front of us with explicit terms set in stone here, so while your questions are good ones to consider when drafting such legislation, they should preclude a right to repair bill passing into law.
Automobile service uses non-OEM parts and recycled (junkyard) parts.
I have a 1965 and 1966 Mustangs. Original body panels are difficult to find, but I’ve not found any mechanical part that was the least bit difficult (aided by high-volume production and a lot of parts crossover up through the early 90s Fox body Mustangs).