U.S. FTC Commits to Fighting Against Unlawful Repair Restrictions

[One2Grift]

They make it harder for DIY repairs. Denying tech documents and details, tools, etc.

Would Apple (and Google and Caterpillar and HP and refrigerator and TV companies whoever else) providing tech documents and specs be enough? Spare parts more available? Do we make the parts available to anyone or government licensed repair?

Serious questions, no offense intended: Where is the line drawn? Do we force them to change design so someone can easily do home repair or it's easier to repair at bob's repair shop? Open up software code, provide CLI and API guide for easier code changes? Who decides which way is better? What products does it cover? Smartphones, OS in smart home products, the entertainment dashboard system in cars, smart door locks, higher end coffee makers?

Better that the companies decide or the government?

 

[lovely666]

Good luck with all that nonsense. I guess the closer the government gets to controlling the means of production the better off society is...

I'm *not* advocating for total government control of anything, I'm saying your argument against right to laws because absolute freedom is the ideal is complete and utter rubbish.

Capitalism and free markets do not work with regulation, time and time again this has been shown. There are many laws around anti-competitive behaviour, around price fixing, etc.

All people and companies abide by laws that government have created to protect and benefit society. And forcing manufactures to at least consider repairability, is no different to forcing manufactures to consider environmental impact or any other of the thousands of regulation and laws that they must consider already.

Welcome to society, welcome to not living in anarchy. welcome to doing something to benefit others and not only always yourself.

 

[Ozid]

Honestly if there was a winning case for Epic or anyone else attempting to make headroom vs Apple in the 3rd party App Store space, it would be here.

Having a place for older devices to continue to receive new software after Apple has abandoned it would be a great argument. Hardware can be repaired, but what about software that is deemed obsolete? I want to install my own OS on older hardware or at least still have access to useful software.

 

[mikethemartian]

The "independent repair shops will slap in bad components" argument wouldn't be a thing if those independent repair shops were allowed to source high quality OEM parts in the first place. Louis Rossmann has to use 'donor boards' to repair other Macs for this very reason.

It's perfect for Apple. They lock down the entire component supply forcing independent repair shops to utilize less than ideal parts then point the finger and say "See, look how bad those repair shops are!"

Personally I'm never taking my devices in to Apple themselves if I can help it, I'll always pick a reputable independent repair shop. Some are Apple certified (which means they have to do things the Apple way such as replacing the entire motherboard for one broken chip), some are not.

Personally I wouldn’t have any confidence in a repair done by the Apple Store or their authorized service affiliates. If it isn’t something I can fix myself I’ll just replace it.

 

[rp100]

Apple discourages right-to-repair by putting chips in their components. Non-genuine camera module or battery? Your device will spam you with warnings to remind you of your sin.

The car industry is far worse, especially now that all cars have ADAS systems. They also started to patent (yes, patent) their vehicle collision parts so that aftermarket companies could not create replicas. Certain bumper covers and headlamps can only be purchased as an OEM part. Aftermarket versions exist but are sold by companies that pay royalties to the OEM.

And if you think that’s bad, consider the pharmaceutical companies that have been doing backroom deals with generic manufacturers by selling licensing fees for…… a drug that can be manufactured without a licensing fee. Net result? Both the name-brand and generic have inflated prices. The epi-pen was a disgusting example, but they also do it for drugs that people rely on for survival (insulin & asthma drugs in particular).

 

[mrhick01]

Possibly the older models not the new ones. You definitely don't see Tesla's in a specialized repair shops.

The Electrified Garage.

 

[mikethemartian]

There's a high end classic car shop in Berkeley that work on older cars (50+ years old) BECAUSE the OEM doesn't service the vehicle anymore. That's one of the central pillars of right to repair: when the OEM no longer wants to service my property I should have legitimate avenues to get it serviced on my own.

I remember when some of those classic Corvettes that fell into the sinkhole were being restored that they consulted with independent experts that knew more about those vehicles than GM did.

 

[One2Grift]

Good luck with all that nonsense. I guess the closer the government gets to controlling the means of production the better off society is...

If government controlled it all 20 years ago we wouldn't have the amazing tech at the palm of our hands like we do now. It's stupefying that anyone would think a single central government consisting of the best used car salesman and shady lawyers.

Well maybe not quite true. There will be another country somewhere who doesn't control industry, and a company there would come along to make rapid improvements in technology due to its competition and incentive. That country's citizens (and the countries in the chain) will benefit from the technology and monetary creation. Other countries that control things sit there looking up waiting for someone else to make it happen (except for the used car salesman and shady lawyers -- they always come out wealthier for some darn strange mystifying reason).

Regulation isn't in and of itself an anathema. But it needs to be as little as is possible, very well thought out(this rules out most of DC "thinking"), favors open competition and incentive as this is what produces the best result for consumers. A result of excellent and quick advancements, reducing costs, gainful employment tree effect throughout.
Anyone who thinks DC (in the U.S.) is going to be the brain child of this just isn't thinking it through.

 

[visualseed]

I'm *not* advocating for total government control of anything, I'm saying your argument against right to laws because absolute freedom is the ideal is complete and utter rubbish.

Capitalism and free markets do not work with regulation, time and time again this has been shown. There are many laws around anti-competitive behaviour, around price fixing, etc.

All people and companies abide by laws that government have created to protect and benefit society. And forcing manufactures to at least consider repairability, is no different to forcing manufactures to consider environmental impact or any other of the thousands of regulation and laws that they must consider already.

Welcome to society, welcome to not living in anarchy. welcome to doing something to benefit others and not only always yourself.

I never once said I was against regulations, but time and time again regulations have had to be dialed back because, in America, you can't unduly impose costs on a company without clear, measurable public benefit that outweigh the costs. Companies are free to choose how they do business. If apple doesn't want to be in the supporting the third-party repair shop business I think it's going to be hard to argue that they should be. Would it be fair to force you to be in a business that you didn't want to be in? These parts everyone thinks should be cheap and available, have to be designed, manufactured, documented, inventoried for years, paid for upfront by somebody and distributed individually through some reseller channel or network when somebody wants to buy a single unit. And everyone seems to want this at some wholesale cost that will undercut a company's first-party repair service. So basically you are demanding a company be regulated to compete with itself and foot all the costs in doing so.

The argument that this saves e-waste from the landfill is bunk as most consumer electronics are disposed of not because they are in disrepair, but because they age out of usefulness. Forcing companies to provide OS support for older devices would probably do more to solve that problem than allowing consumers to save a few bucks on a battery swap or screen replacement, but that's not going to happen either. Apple has a good faith argument that they do provide repair services on their products for years after they are sold. The bad-faith argument is that they should be forced to undercut that service to allow consumers to get cheaper repairs on products they paid a premium for.

 

[mikethemartian]

I prefer the electronic devices I purchase to be reliable, efficiently designed, and reasonably priced. Redesigning to accommodate the ability to repair or upgrade a device yourself would raise the price, make the device larger, and probably reduce the reliability. I don’t think you can have it both ways.

Why would it make it less reliable?

 

[Krizoitz]

We only need small improvements to correct Apple's self centered, 1990's Microsoft emulating, condescending, nanny motivations; which are replaceable batteries; memory, and SSDs. These items wear out and need to be smart user replaceable.

Sure there are some users that should never even contemplate replacements, but it is not Apple's responsibility to protect them from themselves. At least not in a free and open society.

If you want these parts to be user serviceable buy a computer which offers that. No one is stopping you.
Most users don’t care about that, they care about size and simplicity, they’d rather have thinner and lighter and that means sacrificing modularity.

Meanwhile so-called “right to repair” laws won’t make user replaceable parts mandatory anyway.

And a “free and open society” has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether Apple devices use upgradable parts. Come on.

 

[steve333]

New electronics usually have a 1 year warranty. Repairs usually have only 90 days. I don't see where Apple did you wrong, other than charging you an arm and a leg.

A well run company would at least give a discount towards a new computer considering their 'repair' was inadequate

 

[Solomani]

What is unlawful? Did Apple threaten anyone from bringing their broken-screen iPad to Big Bubba Bo-Bob's Repair Shop for PCs and Macs Too?

Apple doesn't stop people from bringing their devices to anyone for repairs. They never physically could. But they do (and should) expect that some incompetent repair shops will worsen the condition of your iPhones and iPads... and Apple shouldn't have to pick up the bill by honoring your warranty.

What this comes down to is the Terms of Service of a warranty. THAT is what the courts and FTC should discuss and deliberate. Should bringing your iPhone to Big Bubba's Repair Shop for PCs (and Macs Too) automatically void your Apple warranty? On what conditions? Just because? Or because maybe Big Bubba was never a trained nor certified smartphone tech? Or because Big Bubba never paid for the certification to be an Apple Authorized Dealer/Servicer? Again, this is what the FTC and the courts need to discuss.... warranties as well as service agreements. And not just for Apple, for the entire damn industry.

One summer I once worked part-time for CompUSA, remember those? All the salespeople.... every single time, we were pushed by management to always always always always push and sell extended warranties. For every single PC, and even every single printer, etc. Salespersons needed to shove extended warranties on the face of every customer. Warranties were hugely profitable. But their value? And how reliably the warranties honored the customers who came back with broken devices? THAT is what the courts and FTC need to discuss once and for all.

 

[Mousse]

False. I've seen plenty of high-end sport cars at mom & pop shops; Tesla, Lambo, Ferrari, Porsche, etc.

Yep. Mostly routine maintenance stuff, I'd bet. Old joke my mechanic tells me about these high end sports cars, "For every hour driving, it's ten hours in the shop."

Would Apple (and Google and Caterpillar and HP and refrigerator and TV companies whoever else) providing tech documents and specs be enough?

I would say, this is adequate. Have you seen the tech manuals from auto makers? It ain't step by step stuff; they assume [correctly] that the person reading is a qualified mechanic. And the manuals ain't cheap.

Spare parts more available? Do we make the parts available to anyone or government licensed repair?

Apple can set the price. *wink wink nudge nudge* Same as with cars, OEM costs more than 3rd party equivalent.

 

[lovely666]

I never once said I was against regulations, but time and time again regulations have had to be dialed back because, in America, you can't unduly impose costs on a company without clear, measurable public benefit that outweigh the costs. Companies are free to choose how they do business. If apple doesn't want to be in the supporting the third-party repair shop business I think it's going to be hard to argue that that should be. Would it be fair to force you to be in a business that you didn't want to be in? These parts everyone thinks should be cheap and available, have to be designed, manufactured, documented, inventoried for years, paid for upfront by somebody and distributed individually through some reseller channel or network when somebody wants to buy a single unit. And everyone seems to want this at some wholesale cost that will undercut a company's first-party repair service. So basically you are demanding a company be regulated to compete with itself and foot all the costs in doing so.

The argument that that this saves e-waste from the landfill is bunk as most consumer electronics are disposed of not because they are in disrepair, but because they age out of usefulness. Forcing companies to provide OS support for older devices would probably do more to solve that problem than allowing consumers to save a few bucks on a battery swap or screen replacement, but that's not going to happen either. Apple has a good faith argument that they do provide repair services on their products for years after they are sold. The bad-faith argument is that they should be forced to undercut that service to allow consumers to get cheaper repairs on products they paid a premium for.

Nobody said that Apple or a manufacturer have to sell parts and components under cost (including r&d and etc). All I am saying is they must supply those components rather than prevent third party repair by preventing them being sourced. At the moment there are many components that can not even be sourced at any cost less than buying the same device and transplatning the components. Apple even gos to great lengths to prevent these components leaking into the market though back channels. Or locking components to each other prevent them being harvested from other devices.

There is nothing wrong with undercutting a companies first party repair service. Right to repair is a movement saying that just because you designed and built it shouldn't mean you have the exclusive right to repair it. It's a form of anti-competitive behaviour.

Apple adopts business practises that prevent third party repair. There is nothing that says apple have to stop people importing side channel spare parts but they do, there is nothing forcing apple to make exclusive agreements with component manufacturers to supply parts that are slightly different so that replacement parts can't be sourced. There is nothing forcing apple to put it's logo on the back of an lcd that a consumer will never see, just so they can use counterfeit good laws to prevent side channel imports.

The argument that it wouldn't save on e-waste is rubbish, every new mac book pro i've bought has been because my old one started developing problems (screens, batteries, power issues). And i'm one of many people i know that have had the same experience. I would have sold every one of these old devices on ebay, if it wasn't more trouble and cost to repair them first. It's the standard pattern for a professionally used MBP, it lasts a bit over 2.5 years and then has another 2-4 years of osx updates. So the unit would definitely not be considered useless.

 

[The Cappy]

"Restricting consumers and businesses from choosing how they repair products can substantially increase the total cost of repairs, generate harmful electronic waste, and unnecessarily increase wait times for repairs. In contrast, providing more choice in repairs can lead to lower costs, reduce e-waste by extending the useful lifespan of products, enable more timely repairs, and provide economic opportunities for entrepreneurs and local businesses."

So... the manufacturer's restrictions against repair aren't unlawful, they're just unfair.

"The Commission will bring an interdisciplinary approach to this issue, using resources and expertise from throughout the agency to combat unlawful repair restrictions. The FTC will also closely coordinate with state law enforcement and policymakers to ensure compliance and to update existing law and regulation to advance the goal of open repair markets."

But we still used the word "unlawful" because, you know, urgency and mandate and stuff. So the article toadies a bit and cites a law...

"The FTC is urging the public to submit complaints and provide information to aid in its enforcement of right to repair options, and it will consider filing suit against those who violate the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act in addition to scrutinizing repair restrictions for violation of antitrust laws."

But if you google "Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act", it includes this very interesting line: "The law does not require any product to have a warranty, but if it does have a warranty, the warranty must comply with this law."

We didn't include that tidbit in the article because that would interfere with the image of brave administration people, standing heroically atop the battlements of justice, preparing to fight the good fight for the little man.

If you believe in the right to repair, fine. There are decent arguments on both sides. But this seems more an example of government people making over-inflamed rhetoric to make routine business sound like a glorious crusade against evil. When really it's fairly mundane stuff. And MacRumors is just eating it up.

 

[andrei.barbuta]

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." - Margaret Mead.
Louis Rossman and everybody else who championed for this should have all of our respect. Imagine when they started this, saying that it was an uphill battle was an understatement.

 

[ian87w]

The term "Right to repair" unfortunately can be misleading. It's more about access to schematics and parts. Anyway, hopefully we will see more positives out of this. This is especially important in markets where Apple doesn't have official presence.

 

[ksec]

Incorrect. Every abstraction has a cost, at least on the M1 They decided not to pay that cost.

What ?

 

[Khedron]

Before you owned it, Apple owned it and they were free to build the device however they wanted. You had the freedom not to buy it if you didn't like how they made it. Nobody is stopping you from trying to repair or modify it on your own or take it to any shop or individual that claims they can repair it. But it sounds like you want Apple to be compelled to assist you or whomever in making those repairs. That doesn't sound too much like freedom to me. That sounds like the government forcing Apple to be in a business they don't want to be in.

Actually they were not free to build the device however they wanted. They were subject to numerous laws covering things like employment rights, safety, environmental standards, financial regulations...

This is called living in a civilised society. If you want complete freedom go build a cabin in the woods (but only using trees that you personally own).

Or to put in in the language of an Apple fanatic; if Apple don't want to follow the rules of government why don't they just go form their own country with their own infrastructure and currency?

 

[Tech198]

As much as i like the freedom to repair my own devices, i also want it to last just as long too without constant repair work.

 

[Kabeyun]

What about the small sweat shops for repair business in China and all across the world? Sounds like a controlled substance in the U.S.

Apple should just focus on making the devices more complicated to even repair them. Same concept can be applied to Apple products.

For example: You don’t see a Ferrari or Lamborghini at a small repair shop. They always end up in a certified dealership. Same goes with Tesla’s vehicle.

I suspect you don’t see Ferraris or Lamborghinis at small repair shops because people who can afford them don’t give a crap about saving a few bucks at the corner garage, not because they were purposely made too complicated for an average mechanic.

 

[ruka.snow]

So Apple and others can make the system on a chip socketed. And you can replace the entire system on a chip to repair it. We aren’t going back to beige boxes now. People want tablets and smartphones and will have to deal with those being hard to repair. We have near waterproof phones, so they’ll never be a user replaceable battery.

 

[I7guy]

Actually they were not free to build the device however they wanted. They were subject to numerous laws covering things like employment rights, safety, environmental standards, financial regulations...

Perfect example of the language of an Apple critic. The spin on my word. Apple was free to the creative thinking of it's employees and contractors to conceptualize and design a cellular phone that meets all laws and regulations and license requirements.

This is called living in a civilised society. If you want complete freedom go build a cabin in the woods (but only using trees that you personally own).

Or to put in in the language of an Apple fanatic; if Apple don't want to follow the rules of government why don't they just go form their own country with their own infrastructure and currency?

The problem is the generalized, hyperbolic nature of an unsubstantiated universe of people that you can't prove would say the thing you alleging.

 

[robbietop]

Unintended consequence? Battery gets smaller as they have to now make room for cabling that can be removed by the user