Re: "Right to Repair" vs FRUs

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!