Apple now displays iPhone and Mac repairability scores in France

While producers assign their own scores

Interesting idea. But if everyone assigns their own scores, it could get messy in court.

I'm more leery about right to repair laws, mentioned at the end of this article. Some parts of some devices (cars, phones) could have their security or safety compromised in a huge way by giving owners the right to repair them. Do we want consumers doing maintenance on air bags? Do we want consumers able to modify the storage area of their phone's secure element? The whole idea of "trade secrets" has been around since 1817 and it seems that "right to repair" is in direct conflict with "trade secrets." here's a good summary I found online:

Various products are subject to systems (e.g., purchase agreements) under which product purchasers and third parties are prevented from repairing the products and the only way to repair the product is to proceed through an authorized vendor or the original manufacturer. Manufacturers often favor such systems, as the systems
(1) allow the manufacturers to obtain additional revenue through their own repair services,
(2) prevent consumers and third-parties from accessing trade secrets that are contained within the products; and
(3) prevent consumers from injuring themselves during repairs of complex products.
Consumers are sometimes concerned with such systems, as the systems can limit consumer options to repair the devices and could lead to increased waste, as consumers may elect to purchase new products instead of committing to a lengthy and expensive repair process to fix an existing product. This issue has been getting some traction around the country, as several states have passed (or are reviewing) legislation related to providing purchasers with a “right to repair” products that they may purchase.

I suspect that reason (1) above is why most people want "right to repair", but reasons (2) and (3) seem like valid arguments against right to repair. If pro-repair proponents would explain how the feel about (2) and (3), I might be more receptive to their views. But I've never seen them talk about those issues. They just ignore these important issues, which is why I'm leaning against their views at this time.

22july2013 said:

While producers assign their own scores

Interesting idea. But if everyone assigns their own scores, it could get messy in court.

I'm more leery about right to repair laws, mentioned at the end of this article. Some parts of some devices (cars, phones) could have their security or safety compromised in a huge way by giving owners the right to repair them. Do we want consumers doing maintenance on air bags? Do we want consumers able to modify the storage area of their phone's secure element? The whole idea of "trade secrets" has been around since 1817 and it seems that "right to repair" is in direct conflict with "trade secrets." here's a good summary I found online:

Various products are subject to systems (e.g., purchase agreements) under which product purchasers and third parties are prevented from repairing the products and the only way to repair the product is to proceed through an authorized vendor or the original manufacturer. Manufacturers often favor such systems, as the systems
(1) allow the manufacturers to obtain additional revenue through their own repair services,
(2) prevent consumers and third-parties from accessing trade secrets that are contained within the products; and
(3) prevent consumers from injuring themselves during repairs of complex products.
Consumers are sometimes concerned with such systems, as the systems can limit consumer options to repair the devices and could lead to increased waste, as consumers may elect to purchase new products instead of committing to a lengthy and expensive repair process to fix an existing product. This issue has been getting some traction around the country, as several states have passed (or are reviewing) legislation related to providing purchasers with a “right to repair” products that they may purchase.

I suspect that reason (1) above is why most people want "right to repair", but reasons (2) and (3) seem like valid arguments against right to repair. If pro-repair proponents would explain how the feel about (2) and (3), I might be more receptive to their views. But I've never seen them talk about those issues. They just ignore these important issues, which is why I'm leaning against their views at this time.

Yeah, I wondered about the scores, too. If every manufacturer assigns their own score, they're essentially meaningless.

As far as right to repair, I think you are raising a bunch of red herrings. Trade secrets have not been an issue in the auto industry, nor have all the supposed safety and reliability issues that everyone cries about. how would allowing someone to swap parts out in their phone reveal any more trade secrets than are already revealed by fixit? And I find it laughable that people are concerned with consumers injuring themselves by repairing an iPhone but have absolutely no problem with somebody doing a brake job in their driveway.

MplsP said:

22july2013 said:

While producers assign their own scores

Interesting idea. But if everyone assigns their own scores, it could get messy in court.

I'm more leery about right to repair laws, mentioned at the end of this article. Some parts of some devices (cars, phones) could have their security or safety compromised in a huge way by giving owners the right to repair them. Do we want consumers doing maintenance on air bags? Do we want consumers able to modify the storage area of their phone's secure element? The whole idea of "trade secrets" has been around since 1817 and it seems that "right to repair" is in direct conflict with "trade secrets." here's a good summary I found online:

Various products are subject to systems (e.g., purchase agreements) under which product purchasers and third parties are prevented from repairing the products and the only way to repair the product is to proceed through an authorized vendor or the original manufacturer. Manufacturers often favor such systems, as the systems
(1) allow the manufacturers to obtain additional revenue through their own repair services,
(2) prevent consumers and third-parties from accessing trade secrets that are contained within the products; and
(3) prevent consumers from injuring themselves during repairs of complex products.
Consumers are sometimes concerned with such systems, as the systems can limit consumer options to repair the devices and could lead to increased waste, as consumers may elect to purchase new products instead of committing to a lengthy and expensive repair process to fix an existing product. This issue has been getting some traction around the country, as several states have passed (or are reviewing) legislation related to providing purchasers with a “right to repair” products that they may purchase.

I suspect that reason (1) above is why most people want "right to repair", but reasons (2) and (3) seem like valid arguments against right to repair. If pro-repair proponents would explain how the feel about (2) and (3), I might be more receptive to their views. But I've never seen them talk about those issues. They just ignore these important issues, which is why I'm leaning against their views at this time.

Yeah, I wondered about the scores, too. If every manufacturer assigns their own score, they're essentially meaningless.

As far as right to repair, I think you are raising a bunch of red herrings. Trade secrets have not been an issue in the auto industry, nor have all the supposed safety and reliability issues that everyone cries about. how would allowing someone to swap parts out in their phone reveal any more trade secrets than are already revealed by fixit? And I find it laughable that people are concerned with consumers injuring themselves by repairing an iPhone but have absolutely no problem with somebody doing a brake job in their driveway.

The issues I quoted came from a respectable legal website, and were not my own concerns.

iPhones manufactured up until about 2014 were made with benzene and n-hexane. "Benzene can cause leukemia, a blood cancer, and leukopenia, a dangerously low white blood cell count. The chemical n-hexane is a neurotoxicant that can cause nerve damage and paralysis." Under pressure form an anti-China group, Apple agreed to remove these chemicals from the assembly process, which were dangerous especially to the assembly workers but potentially to the end user also. I don't think Apple's competitors have removed these dangerous chemicals yet from their manufacturing processes. How do you know all dangerous chemicals have been removed from all smartphones?

Did you know many smartphones currently contain "lead, bromine, chlorine, mercury and cadmium"? Did you know outdoor furniture like park benches are still treated with arsenic? Did you know arsenic is poisonous? Did you know that the EPA is currently studying whether "children who repeatedly come in contact with the preservative -- known as chromated copper arsenate or CCA -- face a heightened risk of developing cancer of the lungs, bladder or skin"? Do you know how dangerous it is to breathe fumes form burning park benches? Or even from burning painted wood? The point is there are dangers that average people like you and I don't know about. 

In this era of COVID we should let science be telling us what is safe and what is not safe, not use logic like "I can repair my brakes, so I should be allowed to repair my smartphone."

In this era of COVID we should let science be telling us what is safe and what is not safe, not use logic like "I can repair my brakes, so I should be allowed to repair my smartphone."

Indeed, science decide what safe is,  but every individual must have to right to ignore that decision as long as others are not impacted by the consequences.  The right to repair is a fundamental aspect as freedom, taking into account that freedom also brings responsibility with it.

MplsP said:

22july2013 said:

While producers assign their own scores

Interesting idea. But if everyone assigns their own scores, it could get messy in court.

I'm more leery about right to repair laws, mentioned at the end of this article. Some parts of some devices (cars, phones) could have their security or safety compromised in a huge way by giving owners the right to repair them. Do we want consumers doing maintenance on air bags? Do we want consumers able to modify the storage area of their phone's secure element? The whole idea of "trade secrets" has been around since 1817 and it seems that "right to repair" is in direct conflict with "trade secrets." here's a good summary I found online:

Various products are subject to systems (e.g., purchase agreements) under which product purchasers and third parties are prevented from repairing the products and the only way to repair the product is to proceed through an authorized vendor or the original manufacturer. Manufacturers often favor such systems, as the systems
(1) allow the manufacturers to obtain additional revenue through their own repair services,
(2) prevent consumers and third-parties from accessing trade secrets that are contained within the products; and
(3) prevent consumers from injuring themselves during repairs of complex products.
Consumers are sometimes concerned with such systems, as the systems can limit consumer options to repair the devices and could lead to increased waste, as consumers may elect to purchase new products instead of committing to a lengthy and expensive repair process to fix an existing product. This issue has been getting some traction around the country, as several states have passed (or are reviewing) legislation related to providing purchasers with a “right to repair” products that they may purchase.

I suspect that reason (1) above is why most people want "right to repair", but reasons (2) and (3) seem like valid arguments against right to repair. If pro-repair proponents would explain how the feel about (2) and (3), I might be more receptive to their views. But I've never seen them talk about those issues. They just ignore these important issues, which is why I'm leaning against their views at this time.

Yeah, I wondered about the scores, too. If every manufacturer assigns their own score, they're essentially meaningless.

"While producers assign their own scores, those claims can be refuted by competitors and officially scrutinized by the General Directorate for Competition Policy, Consumer Affairs and Fraud Control."

I'm not sure if there's any penalty for getting it wrong wrong in the self-declarations, but the fact that they're open to challenge and scrutinized by an authority means that they're not exactly meaningless, or not long term at least.  One would hope the authority has a playbook for how these things should go, and egregiously deceptive self-reporting would be punished, or censured.