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...
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.
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...
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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!
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
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 418 |
Nodes: | 16 (1 / 15) |
Uptime: | 03:35:24 |
Calls: | 8,787 |
Calls today: | 14 |
Files: | 13,296 |
Messages: | 5,965,649 |