- cross-posted to:
- europe@feddit.org
- cross-posted to:
- europe@feddit.org
The products covered by the obligation to repair currently include:
- washing machines and washer-dryers
- dishwashers
- refrigerators
- electronic displays
- welding equipment
- servers and data storage products
- mobile phones, cordless phones and tablets
- tumble dryers
- e-bikes and e-scooters batteries (from 18 February 2027)
- local space heaters
You must log in or # to comment.
I wonder how it handles things like protected software code? Repairable probably would mean buying an electronics module worth more than the device.
According to the directive, software may not be used to block lawful repairs. But yes, they don’t have to give away their intellectual property either.
They pass dystopian chat control with one hand and does this with the other.
Well when you think about it this is just another form of control over businesses. That’s equally authoritarian.
If businesses were people that’d be a great point.
The EU is a complex organization with different power poles and a variety of different interests. Add to that members of parliament do not always understand everything they vote for. And yes: you get bad things, nonsensical rules, but also good things.
Overall, I would say it’s positive, but when it’s bad it can be brutal.
Edit: I forgot to mention lobbying! Brussels is full of lobbyists!
It is also influenced by us, those who vote in the election of the European Union. The European Greens and Socialist & Democrats have lost quite a bit of influence since the last period.
Seriously, talk about major whiplash with how they do things lmao
Makes you think, right? Almost as if the narrative about how dystopian chat control is and how evil EU is doesn’t really add up and it’s just people repeating some bullshit they read on a blog.
There is a lot of anti-EU propaganda, especially surrounding the Chat Control.
Yes, there are some authoritarian politicians trying to push it through. But there is a reason why it has failed so many times. Because most EU politicians are really not that bad.
The propaganda is being pushed by Russia to sow discontent in the EU. That is why you see on every positive EU story, there is someone in the comment going “What about Chat Control though?” As if that proves the EU is evil.
As if that proves the EU is evil.
It sure as hell proves evil intent.
We’re lucky there’s a majority against chat control but that still means there was a minority proposing it.
And i don’t think the divide is that bigIt only proves evil intent of those specific politicians trying to push it through.
It doesn’t prove any evil intent from anything else in the EU.
The EU is a democracy. Which means that we sometimes also let evil people talk.
All those people in Brussels are out of touch. They live in their own world.
A world where there is right to repair.
Good, now let’s increase the list and also add vacuum cleaners to it! I thought that they already were but seemingly not :(
I repaired mine last week. The power cable was broken. I had to take the whole thing apart top to bottom and it was a huge pain, but I did it after a few hours and now it’s good as new!
For mine replacing the roller belt would require replacing the entire head. So damn wasteful.
There is no repair without firmware. All hardware needs to be documented and ship with source. It hasn’t been enough to be able to buy physical parts since perhaps the 80s or 90s. Everything is controlled by software. Without that right to repair is a joke. Meanwhile the surveillance industry and their well greased govt supporters are trying to lock down software. Can’t have it both ways.
Interesting things that are not on the list:
- Farming equipment
- Motor and electric vehicles
- Computers (including laptops)
- Video game consoles
- HVAC systems and equipment
Not sure if smart TVs fall under “electronic displays”, or if they just mean commercial displays when they say that.
not yet ! we hope !
John deer tractor lost a case that became famous in my rural area (and elsewhere). It now have to let repair shop acces the tools and allow repair on its tractors.
I take the win ! And we continue to push forward in talks, petitions, actions and repairs (autorised or else) Support and/or use open source.
microwave ovens…
in fact, make that all kitchen appliances.
I guess maybe microwaves are not on the list because they have big meaty capacitors that could be holding a charge still?
Considering the videos on youtube about creators disassembling and modifying them and the warnings creators like styropyro and The king of random did…I don’t think they should be serviced by the regular joe. Or the dangerous parts should be sealed of from the boring stuff like the buttons (e.g. door opener) so one trained technicians can reach it but the hurdle is big enough for normies.
Farming equipment is a particularly annoying one, that and construction vehicles, are becoming increasingly locked down by proprietary software and impossible to maintain yourself. You can’t even employ mechanics outside the dealer network in some instances and it will be more so in the future.
Computers are not on it because you will never own one in the future. You will lease them.
What exactly do you think you’d be able to easily repair on a video game console?
Video consoles are either desktop computers with proprietary parts, or tablets with proprietary parts. There is nothing especially difficult to repair in them compared to the rest of their categories.
It would be especially hard to replace the RAM and SOC in them actually.
Well how about mobile phone, laptop or a tablet?
I’m not seeing easy written anywhere, it can still be done by experts but the idea I feel would be that its overall possible to accomplish by a third party.
Consoles are just computers now.
People repair those all the time.
Broken ports, replace hard drive, replace memory, no software locks so custom software can keep it alive, replace battery (on a Switch for example).
Lots of thing right to repair could do for consoles.
I would hope that the Switch falls under “Tablets”. Because that’s exactly what it is.
yeah “farming equipment” is an important one. fuck john deere
Hopefully, malicious compliance loopholes will be fixed eventually
When the EU mandated USB-C, Apple included a bullshit adapter so they could keep their proprietary charger. But of course if someone with an iPhone was visiting my house they wouldn’t have an adapter with them. Eventually the EU bitch-slapped Apple over that nonsense and now iPhones have USB-C for charging.
So, companies will definitely try to weasel out of serving consumers, and the EU will eventually sort them out.
Good start I guess but missing plenty of things that others have already pointed out. This list only covers like half of devices in a household. Also, what is stopping companies from pricing replacement parts way out of proportion because of this? Even more than they already do now to prevent repairs
Great in theory until companies start charging 80% of the product price for a single spare part so you’d rather buy a new product than try to repair your existing one.
This is also mentioned in the directive, and directives are legislative texts. The price may not be set so high as to deter repair.
In practice how does that work?
Let’s say they have replacement phone batteries that cost them $20 to make, does the EU limit their profit margins? Do they investigate to make sure it isn’t excessive? If the company tries to sell it for $50, is that too much?
We are talking about legislative texts. These are the kind of texts that are interpreted in court. They don’t specify details because they need to be universally applicable.
Let’s interpret it like most would. A $50 replacement battery for a smartphone costing hundreds of dollars to replace does not deter repair and therefore is probably in line with the directive. A $50 dollar replacement battery for a $40 dumbphone does deter repair and such a scheme would therefore be illegal.
Depends on how it’s done. If they have to make schematics and binaries available, it’s different than having to provide parts at whatever cost they’d like.
But not games…
Games industry is somehow infinitely more corrupt.
Ah fuck boys, we enacted this landmark repairability legislation for daily use machines, but forgot to include video games.
For real though do you mean game consoles, the software?
They’re referencing the stop killing games initiative that was turned down recently. It is akin to this but the software version.
If only they could have done this with games.
Every program is open source
can we have this in America? Answer: No! in fact in America everything popular in other countries is banned unless it’s used in federal buildings because “security concerns”. yeah… sure… so very worried about “national security” that security risks can only be used in government buildings and not in private homes… yeah sure… that’s secure.
I wonder if this will mean screwed split half washing machine drums, for example.
One of the most common failure points in washing machines is the drum bearing. Nowadays almost all makes are using drums where the halves of the drum are plastic, welded together, where they used to be screwed together. The welds prevent opening the drum, and make bearing replacement basically impossible. The makes will sell you a replacement of the whole assembly, but it will often cost like 2/3 of a new machine. This means that a bearing failure often results in chucking a machine that used to be repaired for a cost under a 100 € if done professionally, or tens if DIY.
I imagine the “whole assembly” concept will be used as one of the loopholes.
That specifically is such a naked example of planned obolescence i’m still salty that was not already illegal.
I was fuming when the bearing on my Bosh washing machine wore out and without batting an eyelid they wanted to sell me the whole drum assembly. Including mounting springs. Instead of just some bearings.
For the unitiated, that is roughly 70 percent of all the components in the whole machine. Other than the drum assembly there’s basicly only some logic boards, some plumbing and the motor.
All that to replace a 20 euro bearing. Which is a “wear part” by the way and should therefore 100 percent be serviceable.
My sister remodeled her kitchen about 10nyrs ago. All appliances Bosch. Microwave, fridge and oven have all had problems.
Bosch is not what it used to be. If you can afford it, Miele. Bulletproof, very well engineered and repairable.
Expensive, but worth it in the long run.
I had an all Miele kitchen, except for the microwave. 0 problems in over 15 yrs.
It’s a good start.
Pisses me off that laws are required for this, but that’s what we get for being ruled by the Epstein Class.
Unfortunately there are some exemptions. Flexible / folding displays are not covered. Fitness trackers and watches are not covered.
There is also a battery regulation coming in next year to require phone batteries to be replaceable with no tools but that has loop holes too - long life batteries aren’t covered, IP67 rated phones aren’t covered. So you can bet your boots those two reasons will be what makers use to bullshit their way out of it.
Also software… I would love to have regulations that make it clear that the root of trust on all devices need to start by the owner of the device, not by the vendor… That would allow the end users to repair the software on their devices… Replacing it with whatever else they want. Next would be to provide hardware documentation to the owners to program their own devices… I don’t expect that to happen, but I can dream.
The root of trust can never be on the owner of the device for anything that requires actual security.
I disagree. For any actual security, the owner of the secrets is the only one that can be trusted. It is their secrets. Their own interest to keep them save.
Any company or government is a shifting entity, maybe now they are trustworthy, but maybe in some years they aren’t.
Owners are the only stabile point, because it is their data. They should be able to transfer the trust to a company or government to handle security, but they also need to be able to take away that trust and access, and either handle it themselves or transfer that trust to some other entity.
It is not okay for companies or government to hold the data of individuals hostage… That is not security, that is a business strategy.
If the only person that can verify the safety of your device is the owner, that device will and should be marked as insecure and not to be trusted in any instance where security matters.
Are you talking about owner safety, or some bussiness security. Yes the device is ‘insecure’ if you are taking the point of view of DRM provider or software vendor who wants to make sure advertisements are displayed, etc. Or if your software actual security depends of taking control away from the user. But actual end user security does not have to depend on that.
I’m talking about every service that you use your device for. They will not and should not trust some random phone owner that their device is secure and safe to let use their services. They will, however, trust Google saying that the device is not secure and not tampered with - as they should.
Secure services should always have limited trust to user data and devices. Security built on ‘Google says the device is secure’ is broken. Yes, it is convenient fir service providers who do not care about their customer rights, but more for ‘intellectual property’ and liability.
Lots of apllications still work in web browsers without TPM-based, kernel level DRMs and many of them are still reasonably secure. They are built with the assumption user controls their device. This has always been possible and still is possible. Just inconvenient for corporations.
You are not giving a reason for your statement. The owner is the one that bought a device. The sole arbiter about what a device should do or shouldn’t do. The person responsible of the device. The owner must trust their device in order for the device to be trusted. It doesn’t matter what if other people do or do not trust that device, they are not the owners. They should take care to protect their own data on their own devices.
The reason is obvious, which is why I didn’t think I had to say it lol
Imagine if you went to work at a bank in IT for example. They issue you a laptop. You go “oh no it’s ok I’ll use my own, I assure you it’s secure and safe”.
You connect to their network and instantly their network is compromised, every device on the whole network gets a cryptolocker virus.
You said it was secure though, so how did this happen?
You can trust it all you want, but other systems absolutely do not have to, and anything that requires security assurances will not and should not trust it. The device owners word/assurance means nothing.
Imagine if you went to work at a bank in IT for example. They issue you a laptop.
Who is the owner of that device? The Bank.
Who is the owner of that network? The Bank.
So they are the arbiter of trust in that area. They are free to exclude non-bank-owned devices.
I work in IT, and I’m fine with getting a company laptop for company work. I don’t trust that laptop. I isolate it when I work at home. But the company trusts it, and that is fine.
Those aren’t loopholes though, they’re part of the legislation. Phone makers don’t need to “bullshit” their way out of anything if they meet the criteria, which almost every mobile phone released these days does - making the regulation pretty pointless lol
Well it’s a start.
Flexible / folding displays are not covered
So that’s why after almost a decade, only now Apple is ready to launch their foldable
Having those rules is much better than not having them. Also, IP rating is not enough, batteries also need to have sufficient load cycles. So if it forces them to use only long life batteries that reduces the need for battery repkacements and is already something.
Fitness trackers would be hard to make them easy repairable, when most of them is waterproof
Gaskets are a thing. Many, many, many watches would brag about their water resistance up to 10, 50, 100 meters depth. So I don’t think the excuse is credible.
Water resistance does not mean what people think. ISO 22810 says that a 3 bar (30m) water resistant is “Not suitable for showering, bathing, swimming, snorkeling, water related work, fishing, and diving.”
30m. Not. Suitable. for. showering.
Also, most really waterproof watches, 100m+, have small circular metal cases with metal backs that are screwed shut against a gasket. Some, like G-Shocks, have a proportionally thick stainless steel backplate screwed down, but the plate is what? 3 cm. Diagonal?
Doing so on a thin rectangular device with a reasonable cost is near impossible, too much flex.
Excellebt choice of gif, from my favorite epside of Futurama. Bravo
