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

Technology

55940 readers
4226 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] postnataldrip@lemmy.world 116 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 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 3 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] rockSlayer@lemmy.world 62 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 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 3 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 3 months ago* (last edited 3 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 3 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 3 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

[–] rockSlayer@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

I think that it would still leave room for engineers to be paid a living wage. After all they aren't getting paid for designing parts, they're getting paid to design a product made of interoperable parts

[–] sramder@lemmy.world 2 points 3 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 3 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.

[–] sramder@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

I was actually thinking about OBD2 when I wrote that. The old CRT pedestal style code readers cost as much as a new car, fairly reasonable from an automakers perspective but expensive enough to put plenty of small shops out of business.

It was one of the first big top-down push that I remember. It’s a pretty good parallel for the current right to repair legislation. The automakers fought it tooth and nail back then too. They made similar claims about their new cars being so complex that they simply had to be serviced at the dealerships. And, to your point, they are still getting away with it to a degree.

[–] stinerman@midwest.social 12 points 3 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.

[–] umbrella@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 months ago

like a fucking replacement display could spy on you...