Comment by wtbob | Hacker News Reader

Comment by wtbob | Hacker News Reader

I completely agree that it should be possible to repair things, but this:

> Mr. Wiens is also part of a coalition pushing legislation in Minnesota, Massachusetts and New York that would require “digital electronic product” makers to provide owners and independent repair businesses with service information, security updates and replacement parts. This would, he says, increase choices and lower prices.

…is asininely stupid. In what possible world would the cost of writing, illustrating and editing service information and maintaining security updates not increase costs, which will end up being passed on to customers as part of the cost of doing business?

I'd love for equipment to be supported, but I'm not so daft as to think that means it'll be cheaper.

Heck, even mandating repairability can have costs: for one thing, it would have prevented the existence of smartphones.

Any electronics product from a major manufacturer will have provisions made for repairs. Some repair/refurbishing center will have bid for the repair contract, promising to repair FooPhones at $23/unit or whatever. They will get documentation, parts from the manufacturer, and train a bunch of people in FooPhone repair. Then when Timmy drops his brand new FooPhone, the manufacturer can tell him that for just $79.99, he'll get a factory refurbished one in 2-3 weeks.

Those supposed costs you talk about were already incurred. It's just a requirement that the manufacturer not just limit repairs to "factory authorized" repair centers. There's a very similar debate going on about repairability of automobiles.

Mandating the availability of such service information etc. to 3rd parties is entirely normal in the automotive world. Why do we always treat software and technology as some sort of super special case that should be held to different rules and standards?

>In what possible world would the cost of writing, illustrating and editing service information and maintaining security updates not increase costs, which will end up being passed on to customers as part of the cost of doing business?

I think the argument is that the possibly higher upfront costs would come with a lower total cost of ownership, since you could cheaply repair the item instead of needing to replace it.

Are you ignoring when repair information already tends to exist?

Security updates should definitely be mandatory, even if cost increases a smidge.

Maybe they could use better security upfront if they don't want as many hotfixes...

It's a heck of a lot cheaper than trying to secure something without manufacturer support.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com