• "Right to Repair" vs FRUs

    From Don Y@21:1/5 to All on Tue Oct 1 23:43:30 2024
    Is it safe to assume that any Right-to-Repair legislation (US)
    would *not* require finer-grained subassembly availability
    than that available to their depots?

    I.e., if the *documented* repair policies don't call for
    replacing a particular component with another but, instead,
    indicate replacing the containing FRU, then one would
    likely never have to make the "particular component"
    available to customers?

    Said another way, consumers should never be expected to be
    able to use the vendor as a general purpose "parts warehouse"
    at any level finer than the documented FRUs...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin@21:1/5 to All on Wed Oct 2 07:54:47 2024
    On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 23:43:30 -0700, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid>
    wrote:

    Is it safe to assume that any Right-to-Repair legislation (US)
    would *not* require finer-grained subassembly availability
    than that available to their depots?

    I.e., if the *documented* repair policies don't call for
    replacing a particular component with another but, instead,
    indicate replacing the containing FRU, then one would
    likely never have to make the "particular component"
    available to customers?

    Said another way, consumers should never be expected to be
    able to use the vendor as a general purpose "parts warehouse"
    at any level finer than the documented FRUs...

    It would be cool to be able to buy all of those custom chips.
    Especially if one wants to build and sell cheap knockoff products.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Cursitor Doom@21:1/5 to john larkin on Wed Oct 2 18:02:40 2024
    On Wed, 02 Oct 2024 07:54:47 -0700, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:

    On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 23:43:30 -0700, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid>
    wrote:

    Is it safe to assume that any Right-to-Repair legislation (US)
    would *not* require finer-grained subassembly availability
    than that available to their depots?

    I.e., if the *documented* repair policies don't call for
    replacing a particular component with another but, instead,
    indicate replacing the containing FRU, then one would
    likely never have to make the "particular component"
    available to customers?

    Said another way, consumers should never be expected to be
    able to use the vendor as a general purpose "parts warehouse"
    at any level finer than the documented FRUs...

    It would be cool to be able to buy all of those custom chips.
    Especially if one wants to build and sell cheap knockoff products.

    It won't benefit boat-anchor devotees like myself, whatever happens.
    Expecting Tek or HP to supply a custom chip for something they sold
    30, 40 or more years ago? Not likely at all.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lasse Langwadt@21:1/5 to Don Y on Thu Oct 3 00:23:23 2024
    On 10/2/24 08:43, Don Y wrote:
    Is it safe to assume that any Right-to-Repair legislation (US)
    would *not* require finer-grained subassembly availability
    than that available to their depots?

    I.e., if the *documented* repair policies don't call for
    replacing a particular component with another but, instead,
    indicate replacing the containing FRU, then one would
    likely never have to make the "particular component"
    available to customers?

    Said another way, consumers should never be expected to be
    able to use the vendor as a general purpose "parts warehouse"
    at any level finer than the documented FRUs...


    what would be the point of right to repair then?

    Apple could continue to use a power-supply chip they
    deliberately have made to be incompatible with $0.10
    otherwise identical IC, so they can say sorry you can't
    buy that, but we'll sell you a new motherboard for $1000

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lasse Langwadt@21:1/5 to Cursitor Doom on Thu Oct 3 00:18:31 2024
    On 10/2/24 19:02, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Wed, 02 Oct 2024 07:54:47 -0700, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:

    On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 23:43:30 -0700, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid>
    wrote:

    Is it safe to assume that any Right-to-Repair legislation (US)
    would *not* require finer-grained subassembly availability
    than that available to their depots?

    I.e., if the *documented* repair policies don't call for
    replacing a particular component with another but, instead,
    indicate replacing the containing FRU, then one would
    likely never have to make the "particular component"
    available to customers?

    Said another way, consumers should never be expected to be
    able to use the vendor as a general purpose "parts warehouse"
    at any level finer than the documented FRUs...

    It would be cool to be able to buy all of those custom chips.
    Especially if one wants to build and sell cheap knockoff products.

    It won't benefit boat-anchor devotees like myself, whatever happens. Expecting Tek or HP to supply a custom chip for something they sold
    30, 40 or more years ago? Not likely at all.

    30+ years is a lot expect, but for example, EU requires that car
    manufacturers have spare parts and provide technical service for at
    least 10 years

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ralph Mowery@21:1/5 to All on Wed Oct 2 19:44:49 2024
    In article <vdkgrn$3dbi8$1@dont-email.me>, llc@fonz.dk says...

    It won't benefit boat-anchor devotees like myself, whatever happens. Expecting Tek or HP to supply a custom chip for something they sold
    30, 40 or more years ago? Not likely at all.

    30+ years is a lot expect, but for example, EU requires that car manufacturers have spare parts and provide technical service for at
    least 10 years



    It is hard to hit the happy replacement time. Some industrial machines
    are in use for 50 or more years. I guess that the normal life expencty
    should come into play. Hard to believe in a way but a friend that has
    one says you can get just about any part for the modle T Ford that is
    nearly 100 years old. NOt from Ford but after market items.

    I read that about 30 years ago the military needed a diode that would
    normally cost less than a dollar cost them many thousands of dollars.
    The military parts department did not have one and as it had to meet the
    mill spec the diode company had to make up a batch of thousands as one
    just could not be made. If not for mill spec the diode could have been
    ordered from about half a dozen places for less than a dollar.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Don Y@21:1/5 to Lasse Langwadt on Wed Oct 2 17:05:35 2024
    On 10/2/2024 3:23 PM, Lasse Langwadt wrote:
    On 10/2/24 08:43, Don Y wrote:
    Is it safe to assume that any Right-to-Repair legislation (US)
    would *not* require finer-grained subassembly availability
    than that available to their depots?

    I.e., if the *documented* repair policies don't call for
    replacing a particular component with another but, instead,
    indicate replacing the containing FRU, then one would
    likely never have to make the "particular component"
    available to customers?

    Said another way, consumers should never be expected to be
    able to use the vendor as a general purpose "parts warehouse"
    at any level finer than the documented FRUs...

    what would be the point of right to repair then?

    Apple could continue to use a power-supply chip they
    deliberately have made to be incompatible with $0.10
    otherwise identical IC, so they can say sorry you can't
    buy that, but we'll sell you a new motherboard for $1000

    Yup. Who's to decide that such a 10c chip *would*
    have been acceptable? What if they opt to design a custom
    CPU that *incorporates* that power supply chip -- even if
    the CPU *and* power supply chip were both OTS devices
    (i.e., they CHOSE to integrate them to add value /in their
    eyes/.)

    You'd have *all* manufacturers be seen as glorified
    "parts stores"?
    "I'd like a half dozen 1/4W 4K7 resistors, please,
    and four M1.6 screws, back."
    And, made available at a "reasonable" price?

    That places undo pressure on the manufacturer; if the
    *depot* (authorized repair center) isn't allowed to
    purchase them from the manufacturer, why should a consumer?
    I.e., whatever the FRUs defined as available to the depot
    should apply to the consumer, as well. If the depot can
    locate 4K7's elsewhere and chooses to repair at that level
    (to *avoid* having to purchase a new containing FRU) then
    good for them; they've added their *own* value!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Don Y@21:1/5 to Ralph Mowery on Wed Oct 2 17:14:20 2024
    On 10/2/2024 4:44 PM, Ralph Mowery wrote:
    In article <vdkgrn$3dbi8$1@dont-email.me>, llc@fonz.dk says...

    It won't benefit boat-anchor devotees like myself, whatever happens.
    Expecting Tek or HP to supply a custom chip for something they sold
    30, 40 or more years ago? Not likely at all.

    30+ years is a lot expect, but for example, EU requires that car
    manufacturers have spare parts and provide technical service for at
    least 10 years

    It is hard to hit the happy replacement time. Some industrial machines
    are in use for 50 or more years. I guess that the normal life expencty should come into play.

    What's "normal"? Most of the automobiles /in use/ in Cuba are 50+
    years old.

    Hard to believe in a way but a friend that has
    one says you can get just about any part for the modle T Ford that is
    nearly 100 years old. NOt from Ford but after market items.

    So, The Market adapted to fill the need. The *manufacturer*
    wasn't compelled to maintain their product. "Old cars" are
    a niche market where folks are willing to throw lots of money
    at them to maintain/restore while a *new* vehicle could cost
    considerably less (I'm looking for a '61 Continental and
    figure that will put me in the ~$70K market)

    I read that about 30 years ago the military needed a diode that would normally cost less than a dollar cost them many thousands of dollars.
    The military parts department did not have one and as it had to meet the
    mill spec the diode company had to make up a batch of thousands as one
    just could not be made. If not for mill spec the diode could have been ordered from about half a dozen places for less than a dollar.

    What role is the consumer supposed to play in "keeping current"
    with technology? Buy a TV and the model isn't available a year
    later. Nor any software updates. Should one be able to
    bring the manufacturer to task because of a defect in the
    software? Or, the fact that it can't handle new CODECs
    that have become more prevalent than those that were
    common when it was designed?

    What cost to innovation trying to maintain older kit at
    some marginally profitable level? (carrying costs for
    inventory that may or may not be sold)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Joe Gwinn@21:1/5 to rmowery42@charter.net on Thu Oct 3 10:42:49 2024
    On Wed, 2 Oct 2024 19:44:49 -0400, Ralph Mowery
    <rmowery42@charter.net> wrote:

    In article <vdkgrn$3dbi8$1@dont-email.me>, llc@fonz.dk says...

    It won't benefit boat-anchor devotees like myself, whatever happens.
    Expecting Tek or HP to supply a custom chip for something they sold
    30, 40 or more years ago? Not likely at all.

    30+ years is a lot expect, but for example, EU requires that car
    manufacturers have spare parts and provide technical service for at
    least 10 years



    It is hard to hit the happy replacement time. Some industrial machines
    are in use for 50 or more years. I guess that the normal life expencty >should come into play. Hard to believe in a way but a friend that has
    one says you can get just about any part for the modle T Ford that is
    nearly 100 years old. NOt from Ford but after market items.

    I read that about 30 years ago the military needed a diode that would >normally cost less than a dollar cost them many thousands of dollars.
    The military parts department did not have one and as it had to meet the
    mill spec the diode company had to make up a batch of thousands as one
    just could not be made. If not for mill spec the diode could have been >ordered from about half a dozen places for less than a dollar.

    It's still true. The military supply system is intended to maintain
    systems for many decades, well longer than most parts will be
    available. It's also true for jellybean parts, the cost of process
    and documentation well exceeds the cost of a bag of jellybeans.

    Joe Gwinn

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lasse Langwadt@21:1/5 to Don Y on Thu Oct 3 22:49:17 2024
    On 10/3/24 02:05, Don Y wrote:
    On 10/2/2024 3:23 PM, Lasse Langwadt wrote:
    On 10/2/24 08:43, Don Y wrote:
    Is it safe to assume that any Right-to-Repair legislation (US)
    would *not* require finer-grained subassembly availability
    than that available to their depots?

    I.e., if the *documented* repair policies don't call for
    replacing a particular component with another but, instead,
    indicate replacing the containing FRU, then one would
    likely never have to make the "particular component"
    available to customers?

    Said another way, consumers should never be expected to be
    able to use the vendor as a general purpose "parts warehouse"
    at any level finer than the documented FRUs...

    what would be the point of right to repair then?

    Apple could continue to use a power-supply chip they
    deliberately have made to be incompatible with $0.10
    otherwise identical IC, so they can say sorry you can't
    buy that, but we'll sell you a new motherboard for $1000

    Yup.  Who's to decide that such a 10c chip *would*
    have been acceptable?  What if they opt to design a custom
    CPU that *incorporates* that power supply chip -- even if
    the CPU *and* power supply chip were both OTS devices
    (i.e., they CHOSE to integrate them to add value /in their
    eyes/.)

    the added value of preventing anyone from repairing the device


    You'd have *all* manufacturers be seen as glorified
    "parts stores"?
        "I'd like a half dozen 1/4W 4K7 resistors, please,
        and four M1.6 screws, back."
    And, made available at a "reasonable" price?

    noone is going to buy jelly bean parts from manufactures when you can
    get them faster, cheaper, from digikey et.al.


    That places undo pressure on the manufacturer; if the
    *depot* (authorized repair center) isn't allowed to
    purchase them from the manufacturer, why should a consumer?
    I.e., whatever the FRUs defined as available to the depot
    should apply to the consumer, as well.  If the depot can
    locate 4K7's elsewhere and chooses to repair at that level
    (to *avoid* having to purchase a new containing FRU) then
    good for them; they've added their *own* value!

    so they can just say the authorized repair centers don't do
    component level repair, they replace just the motherboard.
    unauthorized repair centers can't do component level repair
    because the manufacturer refuse to sell parts that they deliberate
    had custom made

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Don Y@21:1/5 to Lasse Langwadt on Thu Oct 3 14:32:05 2024
    On 10/3/2024 1:49 PM, Lasse Langwadt wrote:
    On 10/3/24 02:05, Don Y wrote:
    On 10/2/2024 3:23 PM, Lasse Langwadt wrote:
    On 10/2/24 08:43, Don Y wrote:
    Is it safe to assume that any Right-to-Repair legislation (US)
    would *not* require finer-grained subassembly availability
    than that available to their depots?

    I.e., if the *documented* repair policies don't call for
    replacing a particular component with another but, instead,
    indicate replacing the containing FRU, then one would
    likely never have to make the "particular component"
    available to customers?

    Said another way, consumers should never be expected to be
    able to use the vendor as a general purpose "parts warehouse"
    at any level finer than the documented FRUs...

    what would be the point of right to repair then?

    Apple could continue to use a power-supply chip they
    deliberately have made to be incompatible with $0.10
    otherwise identical IC, so they can say sorry you can't
    buy that, but we'll sell you a new motherboard for $1000

    Yup.  Who's to decide that such a 10c chip *would*
    have been acceptable?  What if they opt to design a custom
    CPU that *incorporates* that power supply chip -- even if
    the CPU *and* power supply chip were both OTS devices
    (i.e., they CHOSE to integrate them to add value /in their
    eyes/.)

    the added value of preventing anyone from repairing the device

    Who's to say that's the case?

    When /Robotron/ was released, it contained a semi-custom
    chip that implemented a BLTer. No magic. Anyone with a
    'scope/analyzer could easily see what it was doing and
    infer it's design. Functionally, it was a trivial design
    effort -- if implemented in TTL.

    It's presence added value (a DIP instead of 30 sq ins of
    additional PCB) and reduced cost. /But, also thwarted the
    rampant counterfeiting that was commonplace in the industry/
    (a clone of your product -- a set of ROMs! -- would be
    available within weeks of your genuine article.

    One can argue that this benefits consumers as well as the
    manufacturer because the manufacturer isn't going to bother
    producing new product if it is just going to be *stolen* (the
    folks buying the machines had no qualms purchasing a knock-off;
    as long as they could put something out that could coax quarters
    from players, why would *they* care about the genuine copyright
    owners? Why would the *players* care???)

    To address the needs of "repairs", it was proposed to sell
    the chip for $2K (the price of an entire machine!) and
    credit $1900 when the "defective" chip that it was
    intended to replace was "returned for credit". I.e., you
    couldn't use the spare parts department as a source of *new*
    components.

    You'd have *all* manufacturers be seen as glorified
    "parts stores"?
         "I'd like a half dozen 1/4W 4K7 resistors, please,
         and four M1.6 screws, back."
    And, made available at a "reasonable" price?

    noone is going to buy jelly bean parts from manufactures when you can get them
    faster, cheaper, from digikey et.al.

    Legislation constrains the price the manufacturer can sell *their* parts
    (along with a "guarantee" of availability); nothing so constrains the
    other retailers.

    In the 70's, UV EPROMs got really scarce, for a while. Everything
    was "on allocation". If I could claim to need one as a part for a
    *repair*, then I could game the typical distis and go direct to the manufacturers of devices that *used* them for my supply!

    Do I have to have proof that I need X of them for X prior purchases?
    Maybe I'm a klutz and I keep toasting them... are you going
    to x-ray the die to verify the "defective" part is actually
    something that you previously sold me (*in* a product)?

    That places undo pressure on the manufacturer; if the
    *depot* (authorized repair center) isn't allowed to
    purchase them from the manufacturer, why should a consumer?
    I.e., whatever the FRUs defined as available to the depot
    should apply to the consumer, as well.  If the depot can
    locate 4K7's elsewhere and chooses to repair at that level
    (to *avoid* having to purchase a new containing FRU) then
    good for them; they've added their *own* value!

    so they can just say the authorized repair centers don't do
    component level repair, they replace just the motherboard.

    Exactly.

    unauthorized repair centers can't do component level repair
    because the manufacturer refuse to sell parts that they deliberate
    had custom made

    And what's wrong with that?

    Shouldn't I be provided with ALL the documents required to
    produce the device so I can *support* a unit that I have
    legally purchased? If I can repair defect X, why should I
    be prevented from doing so simply because I don't have the
    documentation to do so? E.g., imagine all of the bugs that
    could be repaired by "unlicensed" users if they had access
    to the source code for these products ("intellectual
    property"?? What's that?)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)