Is this really a good idea? Sure, "right to repair" and longer lifespans might sound good. But think of all the advancements made by people like Apple with almost all of their products that would be prohibitively hard to do under this legislation. How would you design a iMac where the user could easily fix broken parts (without using a suction cup to remove the whole front glass) or a superthin Macbook Pro where no parts could be fastned by glue, like the batteries. Not to mention the iPhone. I imagine that by demanding easy user repair would make everything look like the bulky Lenovo machines.
I don't believe that Apple design their stuff with the intention to make it hard to repair for end users, but rather that they make trade-offs that improve other things with the cost of making user repairs hard. But I might be wrong...
Access to specialized equipment by repair shops is not a problem.
The problem is lack of genuine replacement parts, lack of (legally available) schematics and other technical documentation, and software/firmware that prevents repairs by bricking devices [1].
>Access to specialized equipment by repair shops is not a problem.
This is already not true for independent auto repair shops. Manufacturer specific computer diagnostic tools can cost them tens of thousands each and often they don't have the same level of tools as the dealers.
The tools themselves aren't the issue, the only thing specific to these tools is a complete mapping of proprietary error codes. If manufacturers were forced to release a list of all error codes and their meanings as part of the owner's manual this would be a non-issue.
I've never had a problem finding replacement parts for phones, tablets and other devices including batteries, screens, power buttons, headphones jacks, etc. All are readily available if you're willing to wait a few weeks for shipping.
Maybe a few things aren't "genuine", like finding OEM batteries is pretty tricky with some devices, but the ones you get do the job with no significant issues in my experience - just beware of the risks of faked specs and buy the cheapest rather than paying more for faked spec.
The thing about repair is it's often not economically viable, especially if you're paying for labor - for example, I could have payed someone $100 to replace the phone screen on my Nexus 5 - a brand new one on ebay goes for $170. I may as well just buy a new phone or use it as an excuse to upgrade. So in many ways, the repair shops are a bigger impedance to repairs than the parts situation in my opinion. Instead I was able to buy a replacement screen assembly directly out of China for $30 and do the replacement myself for free, it's the only way the repair made economic sense.
I think most people see eye to eye with you on this, at some point a product is just so tightly integrated that it is almost impossible to repair without specialised equipment. That is completely fine.
However, I think the main purpose here is to make spare parts available for the people who really want to try. Designing for repairability in mind is such a vague concept that Apple & Co. will be able to legally weasel out of it anyway.
As someone who bought a super-costly iMac that isn't upgradeable, I disagree with you. If the EU were to force Apple to make the iMac just an inch thicker to make it upgradeable, I'd take it. It wouldn't increase the computer's footprint (the space on my table that it consumes).
I know upgradeability isn't exactly the same as repairability, but they're close.
You bought it fully aware of the limitations with regards to repairability/upgradeability, and even though I agree with you that it would be nice to upgrade it (even if it's just something as simple as RAM replacement), I feel it's wrong to force Apple to move that trade-off with legislation.
It's not as you can't buy a computer thats easily upgradeable (every PC ever almost) if you would like to made that trade-off yourself. (Again I would also like to see an upgradeable iMac / cheaper Mac Pro)
Well, my point is that everything has a cost, even repairability/upgradeability, either in monetary value, or in lack of some features. With this in mind, then manufacturers have to consider where on that spectrum they want to be. What things to give up in order to provide "optimum" user value. And I think, for many people, that the current limited upgradeability of for example iPads is quite close to the optima. Screens and batteries can be quite easily changed, but you can't upgrade the storage or other internal components. The lack of repairability does not necessarily, in my opinion, show any market force failure. All the failed attempts of modular phones might even show the opposite.
And don't take me wrong, I would looove a more upgradeable Mac (also an iOS developer), but I feel that Apple should be allowed to make those choices by themselves. If upgradeability would be so important for me I could always be an .NET-dev.
One thing to remember is that manufacturers don't optimize for "user value" as in "how much users will like it", but for the value they can take from users, i.e. profit. The two are correlated, but not perfectly and not equally well in every dimension.
I see where you're coming from, but I wasn't talking about phones or tablets. I specifically mentioned the iMac — for a desktop computer, the costs are negligible. You're not holding or carrying it, so weight and thickness are not that important. My iMac is already 10kg. Nobody would notice it if it were 10.5. The benefits far outweigh any negligible costs.
Market forces sort a lot out given time. The first iPhone was only 10 years ago. You didn't have to be an iOS developer. At the same time you don't have to be one in the future unless legislation comes along to force you to maintain your apps.
Economics textbooks assume there are an infinite number of suppliers to choose from, but in reality there's often only two or three, so "do something else" isn't often an option.
I mean if you're dead set on mobile development, yeah, your choices are iOS and Android, and if you want to make more money, prioritizing iOS. But you don't have to be in mobile development. "Do something else" is an option, because there are a vast number of opportunities in the wider tech arena. That's what I'm getting at.
Edit: also do you have any thoughts on the idea of legislation forcing you to maintain an old app? There's a Go game scoring app I use on android but it's buggy as hell, not as good as it used to be, as far as I can tell the developer keeps some servers on but hasn't updated it for a very long time. Should there be a law requiring him to keep the servers on? I can't use anything else on android (that I know of), I'd have to develop it myself.
Regarding your second point, I think it would be a very bad idea. Many apps bring in little money. Mine doesn't even pay for my Internet bill, let alone my other expenses, as a concrete example. If I'm forced legally to maintain them, I won't be able to take the risk of building more. I'll have to quit and take up a 9-to-5 job again.
How much did you pay for that app? A few dollars? For that money, it's not realistic, given the economics, to expect support for a defined period of time. Enterprise contracts, as an example, do have a defined support period but are much costlier. Or you can outsource the development, or buy the app from the developer, all of which are much costlier than a few dollars. Or write it yourself, which is again much costlier in your time. It's simply not financially viable to guarantee that for a few dollars.
Instead, it's more like a one-time thing: you buy what is offered today. There's no promise of updates. Heck, there isn't even a promise that the developer will keep the servers running. If the business isn't working out, despite the developer trying everything possible to make it work, the only option is to shut it down, which is no different from other businesses. This is the unfortunate reality.
Can anyone with knowledge offer their opinion on how allowing more permissive repairs to something like an iPhone would impact it's security? Would allowing the use of third party replacements parts weaken security? What about genuine Apple parts that can be installed by third parties?
They shouldn't take proactive measures to prevent you from opening the device (i.e. gluing it shut), and should in fact take proactive measures not to (i.e. using phillips head screws). There are lots of little things they can do to make it easier without compromising on the design.
Despite that, I don't think requiring specialized tools is a problem so long as they are (1) generally available and (2) reasonably priced.
Simply because there's like 3 or 4 other types out there which look really, really close to a phillips, but aren't. They have slightly different shapes, and use different shaped bits/points on a screwdriver. Some are compatible with each other (but none are compatible with all!) - and others, if you use the wrong driver on the wrong screw, will tend to strip it out, or cam out with damage to either the screw, the tool, or both.
There are much better yet still easy to obtain drive profiles out there to use for screws (torx is one of them).
I really don't think this is a good idea. It will surely make things more expensive for consumers and as a consumer we agree to to buy the product regardless of the repairability. If you want to buy things that are repairable then you need to make it known to the manufacturer that this is something consumers want (i.e. vote with your wallet).
I don't believe that Apple design their stuff with the intention to make it hard to repair for end users, but rather that they make trade-offs that improve other things with the cost of making user repairs hard. But I might be wrong...