top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 116 points 2 years 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.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 75 points 2 years ago (1 child)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 62 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 2 years 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 2 years 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 years 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 2 points 2 years 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 2 years 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 92 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Parts pairing is prohibited only on devices sold in 2025 and later. And there are carve-outs for certain kinds of electronics and devices, including video game consoles, medical devices, HVAC systems, motor vehicles, and—as with other states—"electric toothbrushes."

    What’s a good-faith argument for exempting these devices? Or was it simply successful lobbying in protecting corporate interests.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 71 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    I could see an argument about medical devices, HVAC, and vehicles... But I don't think I'd agree with them. Except maybe medical.

    Consoles and toothbrushes though? What the fuck?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 2 years ago (36 children)

    I don't see any argument for vehicles, tbh. HVAC tinkering is almost exclusively high voltage so that makes just a little sense, don't want people swapping a 350 volt AC capacitor with a 250 volt DC capacitor and having it blow up, but Vehicles means a manufacturer can do everything imaginable to limit part availability and kill aftermarket parts purely for profits.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 36 child comments
  • load more comments (36 replies)
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (2 children)
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (11 children)

    I mean, I don't want the thing supplying the air I'm breathing to accidentally not burn all the gas and lead to carbon monoxide poisoning etc.... Things like the ductwork and shit, for sure, but not like, a burner.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    The great irony is it's frequently the "ductwork" that's the problem: plugged or badly installed exhaust pipes, which the manufacture has no control over. The rest are the appliance itself wearing out or failing with no warning.

    I've repaired furnaces myself several times including replacing burners and exhaust fans -- it isn't rocket science. It's no different than working on any other "dangerous" thing like a car. If someone somehow manages to fuck up so badly it hurts or kills someone that's on them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (10 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 20 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    The goal of the bill was to get something with teeth passed. Fighting every lobby at once would be impossible, so they leave those devices out of it and will now be able to work on different laws for those things. At least that’s what I read they’re doing for the John Deere stuff at least. The legislators know it’s going to be a difficult battle, so they segmented the law to make it so that a failure in one spot wouldn’t cause a loss everywhere.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 56 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    GET FUCKED VOLKSWAGEN YOU COCKSUCKERS

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 47 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    Motor vehicles are exempt and the law doesn't affect anything until 2025.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)
  • [–] 24 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    VW does parts pairing. It resulted in me having to get a new vehicle when my steering wheel controls and air ag stopped functioning. Turns out you have to program the clockspring with the old clockspring and bringing it to VW resulted in a 350$ charge for them to say "we can't fix this".

    Fuck VW.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago (7 children)

    Dealerships are literally the worst place to take a vehicle for a repair. They are in the car selling business, not the car fixing business.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago

    I brought it there after bringing it to my preferred auto shop. Guy did everything in the book with me there and told "yeah sorry man, you're gonna have to bring it to VW" after we watched the programmer failed multiple times.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago

    This isn't necessarily the case anymore. They realized they could charge more money after all this parts pairing and proprietary stuff started.

    Dealerships can make more money from repairs than selling. Especially if sales margin is lower due to online competitors selling cars cheaper.

    This bill attacks one of the things preventing cheaper repairs and shops from helping .

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (5 replies)
  • [–] 48 points 2 years ago

    HP screaming

  • source
  • [–] 40 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    The law, like those passed in New York, California, and Minnesota, will require many manufacturers to provide the same parts, tools, and documentation to individuals and repair shops that they provide to their own repair teams.

    I'm sensing downsizing of "repair teams" in the not so distant future, with calls for repair being forwarded to sales.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 39 points 2 years ago

    I’m waiting for Apple to announce they are pulling out of Oregon 😂 [^1]

    [^1]: Also the impending injunction 😒

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 2 years ago

    I wonder what Louis Rossmann has to say about this.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago

    Next up: printer ink??

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago
    [–] [B] 4 points 2 years ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    Oregon Governor Tina Kotek today signed the state's Right to Repair Act, which will push manufacturers to provide more repair options for their products than any other state so far.

    The law, like those passed in New York, California, and Minnesota, will require many manufacturers to provide the same parts, tools, and documentation to individuals and repair shops that they provide to their own repair teams.

    “By eliminating manufacturer restrictions, the Right to Repair will make it easier for Oregonians to keep their personal electronics running," said Charlie Fisher, director of Oregon's chapter of the Public Interest Research Group (PIRG), in a statement.

    Apple opposed the Oregon repair bill for its parts-pairing ban.

    John Perry, a senior manager for secure design at Apple, testified at a February hearing in Oregon that 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."

    According to Consumer Reports, which lobbied and testified in support of Oregon's bill, the repair laws passed in four states now cover nearly 70 million people.


    The original article contains 311 words, the summary contains 185 words. Saved 41%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›